AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (5) TMI 1424
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ituation. The previous conduct of the applicant/ accused No.7 when he had been remanded to custody was also adverted to. However, ED itself has got the medical documents verified and no doubt has been expressed therein regarding the applicant/ accused No.7 suffering from prostate cancer. As regards the contention that the treatment is available in India, the applicant./ accused No.7 cannot be denied the right to avail treatment from a doctor of his choice or the liberty to get treatment from USA. Though an accused does not have an unfettered right to travel abroad but any apprehensions expressed can be met with suitable conditions. It was also submitted on behalf of ED that the brother of the applicant/ accused No.7 had submitted in the application for anticipatory ball filed by him that he had been threatened by the applicant/ accused No.7. However, the Ld. Counsel for the applicant/ accused No.7 has submitted that the applicant/ accused No.7 would not come in contact with his brother and it is made clear that if the applicant/ accused No.7 tries to contact his brother (who had moved the application for anticipatory bail before the Court of Ld. Special Judge, CBI, Chandigarh), it ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o.7 shall not deal with any property in USA while he is in USA." 3. The reply filed by the petitioner to an application of the respondent seeking vacation of stay granted vide order dated 22.04.2022, read as under:- "8. In light of the ongoing investigation, it has already come to the knowledge of Petitioner that respondent and his family is having some properties outside India including USA. Therefore, allowing Respondent to move outside India shall be detrimental to the investigation of his Directorate. Further, there are statements on record and documents to prove that the respondent owns properties in the U.S.A., the details of the same are not being disclosed as further investigation with respect to the same is ongoing. However, the same can be shown to this Hon'ble Court, if so directed. 9. That, the respondent is already an accused in other investigations of predicate offence related to Ponzi scam amounting to approximately Rs.1900 Crores and there is every likelihood that this scam is even bigger that the estimated amount. Therefore, allowing the accused would be against the public interest owing to possibility of him liquidate/dispose off the laundered assets. Moreove....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t is further submitted the information shared by the Income Tax Department received from Singapore tax authorities clearly reflects his association with various entities and having assets in the form of insurance policies purchased from the proceeds of the crime parked in high seas trading and his denial despite evidence to the contrary. It is alleged the facts of the case do show it is the case of corporate deal to find out the respondent and his family members are the actual beneficiaries of the crime proceeds laundered in this case through the accused companies. The allegations are also he took systemic exist from the companies which received the funds by siphoning, but all administrative and financial activities are still managed and controlled by the respondent. It is stated the respondent has committed offence through various companies and committed the fraud of approximately Rs.1900 Crores. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner despite considering all the above averments, the learned Trial Court in a mechanical manner has granted the permission to respondent to visit abroad whereas further investigation is pending at the crucial stage and there is ev....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....other hand has referred to following judgments to show on medical grounds the accused, even in ED cases, have been allowed to go abroad. 10. In Miss Marie Andre Leclerc vs. State (Delhi Administration) (1984) 2 SCC 443 the Court held: "2. We are, therefore, of the view that on humanitarian grounds it is desirable that the petitioner should be permitted to go to Canada which is her home country and where she has her parents and relatives so that she can receive proper treatment and her relations can be by her side. It is also true that the petitioner can obtain treatment for cancer in India as there are facilities for such a treatment but then chemotherapy has to be given as recommended by Dr. Telang. It will be desirable that the parents and other relations of the petitioner in view of the petitioner's state of health are present when chemotherapy is given because it is known that there are cases where chemotherapy has other adverse effects. We would, therefore, permit the petitioner to go to Canada for a period of one year. But at the same time we have to protect the interests of justice because the petitioner is suffering a sentence of life imprisonment for the offence o....