TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (8) TMI 1254
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, at Police Station CBI, BS&FC, Chandigarh, vide which the application filed by the petitioner seeking permission of the Court to go abroad and visit Dubai and USA was declined. Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is in the business of import and export of readymade garments and the FIR was registered on a complaint given by the Indian Overseas Bank, Zonal Office, Delhi, to Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for the fraud committed by Assistant Manager, Forex Department, Indian Overseas Bank, Sector 7, Chandigarh along with other accused including the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner was a frequent traveller ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....possibility that the petitioner may flee from the country and would never come back to India to face the legal action. The trial Court, thereafter, vide impugned order dated 04.08.2021, dismissed the application by passing the following order:- "5. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that earlier also similar applications had been filed by the applicant and while the CBI court had dismissed his application, the PMLA court had allowed his application. Against the dismissal of application by the CBI Court, a revision had been filed, but withdrawn with the right to contest the application before the Trial Court. It was argued that the applicant needs to go abroad to conduct his business and recover his money and do new business dealing....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sed Utkarsh Pahwa in money laundering case already stands dismissed by the court and similar is the present application which also deserves dismissal. 7. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsels, it comes to notice that as per documents on file, the accused is involved in a serious offence and as per the contentions of the CBI, the acts of the accused and other accused has caused loss to the tune of about Rs. 299 crores to the Indian Overseas Bank. Accused has filed a simple application seeking permission to go abroad to do business dealings, but in his entire application there is no mention of any company with which the accused is required to do any dealings. There is no mention as to which company owes any money to the applic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... dismissed." Counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that till 2016, the petitioner was travelling abroad and it is only after the registration of the FIR, initially his passport was withheld, which was released by this Court and, therefore, the petitioner be granted permission to travel abroad. Learned senior counsel for the respondent - CBI, has heavily opposed the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner in connivance with other co-accused has committed a fraud of Rs. 300/- crores and further argued that there is every possibility that the petitioner may flee from the country if, granted permission to travel abroad. After hearing the counsel for the parties and going through the documents ....