JUDGMENT V.K. Bali, J. (Oral) - Vide a detailed order dated May 19, 2000, running into fifteen pages, recorded in Crl. Misc. No. 10738-M of 2000, Kimti Lal Jain, applicant herein, was allowed anticipatory bail. Operative part of order aforesaid, passed by K.S. Kumaran, J. reads thus :- "Accordingly this petition is allowed. In the event of arrest of the petitioner on the allegations found in the FIR mentioned in this petition, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing sufficient surety to the satisfaction of the arresting officer. However, if the association of the petitioner is necessary for the purpose of further investigation, the investigating officer shall issue notice to the petitioner giving him sufficient time to join investigation and on such notice, the petitioner shall join investigation. The petitioner shall also abide by the provisions of Section 438(2) Criminal Procedure Code" 2. Sub-section (2) of Section 438 Criminal Procedure Code deals with conditions that may be imposed when High Court or Court of Sessions makes a direction under sub- section (1). One such condition is that the person shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court. 3. Vide Crl. Misc. No. 19986 of 2000 in Crl. Misc. No. 10738-M of 2000, filed under Section 482 read with Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, prayer is for permission to the petitioner to visit abroad for business purposes. 4. It has, inter-alia, been pleaded in the aforesaid Criminal Misc. Application that the petitioner is Chairman-cum-Managing Director of Arihant Cotsyn Limited. Apart from this unit, he is also controlling other industrial units, i.e. Arihant Industries Limited, Ludhiana, Arihant Threads Limited at Goindwal, Amritsar and is Vice Chairman-cum-Managing Director of these units and he has stakes and investments in the said units of about rupees three hundred crores. It has further been pleaded that taking into consideration the efforts made by the petitioner in export promotion in his units, the Government of India, Ministry of Commerce, vide certificate dated May 25, 1999, conferred upon M/s Arihant Threads Limited a certificate or recognition as Export House for three years from 1.4.1999 to 31.3.2002. It has further been pleaded that taking into consideration the efforts made by the petitioner in export promotion in his units, the Government of India, Ministry of Commerce, vide certificate dated May 25, 1999, conferred upon M/s Arihant Threads Limited a certificate or recognition as Export House for three years from 1.4.1999 to 31.3.2002. Petitioner is permanent resident of India and regular income tax payee and but for the case is hand, i.e. RC No. 34(A)/98-ACB New Delhi registered under Sections 120- B/420/468/471 Indian Penal Code and under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, there is no other case pending against him. Inasmuch as the petitioners units are export oriented and the single unit, i.e., Arihant Threads Limited, Goindwal had registered the export of cotton yarn to the European countries to the tune of Rs. 20 crores in the previous year and for this year for sale promotion of export the negotiations with the foreign buyers for securing the orders for export of yarn are required to be made personally by the petitioner and the foreign buyers are pressing hard for early settlement of the negotiations and orders and have fixed the meeting on 23rd June, 2000, failing which the petitioner may lose substantial export orders for his units from Germany and U.K., he needs to go abroad. It is for that reason that the seeks 15 days permission to go abroad. He has undertaken in this application that he would come back within 15 days from the foreign visit in connection with the business transactions of his units. This application has been supported by an affidavit of petitioner. 5. Notice of this application was issued to the Standing Counsel for CBI, Mr. Rajan Gupta, Advocate, for 19.6.2000. On the aforesaid date, Mr. Rajan Gupta, Advocate, sought a short adjournment to seek instructions with regard to any serious objection that the respondent may have with regard to petitioner going abroad. The matter was adjourned to 20.6.2000. On the date aforesaid, after hearing arguments at some length, the Court recorded that from the averments made in the application, it cannot be spelt out and that too conclusively that petitioner alone can go to attend the meeting on 23.6.2000 and as to whether any meeting has been fixed and purpose thereof. Petitioner sought time to bring proper material on record. Two criminal misc. Petitioner sought time to bring proper material on record. Two criminal misc. applications were filed on 21.6.2000 which were ordered to be numbered and registered. It may be mentioned here that respondent too has filed reply to the Criminal Misc. Application in hand and petitioner has filed rejoinder to the same. 6. After hearing arguments at sufficient length and, with the assistance of learned counsel for the parties, going though the records of the case, this Court is of the considered view that prayer of the petitioner to go abroad for a period of fifteen days needs to be accepted. 7. In Criminal Misc. which was filed on 21.6.2000 after order dated 20.6.2000 was passed and, as mentioned above, was ordered to be numbered and registered but still has to be numbered and registered, FAX message of the agent of petitioner, namely, M/s. Sofeene Enterprises, Singapore, dated June 19, 2000, requesting the petitioner to visit on or before June 23, 2000, to participante in the meeting with purchasers of U.K. and Europe, failing there would be loss of entire developed business, has been mentioned. Inasmuch as matter was adjourned to 22.6.2000, a request was made to M/s. Sofeene Enterprises to postpone the meeting due to personal reasons and now vide FAX message, Annexures A-2, their agent has informed the petitioner to visit latest by 26th June, 2000 and to discuss with the customers certain technical aspects of the product as per their requirements. Apart from this, FAX messages Annexures A-3 and As-4 showing meeting of the petitioner having been fixed with Colourflex of leads of U.K. and M/s. Sicoma of Italy on June 26, 2000 with regard to supply of cotton yarn have also been annexed. Apart from this, it is pleaded that the petitioner has also requested their supplier of the machinery M/s. Riter, Switzerland, to postpone the meeting after June 26, 2000 to which they have agreed. It is then pleaded that petitioner is the senior-most functionary of his units and is the only competent person to take decision there and then, taking into consideration various aspects with regard to product, supply period, quantity, quality and the rate and schedule of payment. It is then pleaded that petitioner is a law abiding citizen and has not misused the concession of anticipatory bail granted to him vide order dated May 19, 2000. It is then pleaded that petitioner is a law abiding citizen and has not misused the concession of anticipatory bail granted to him vide order dated May 19, 2000. (Correction in para 6 allowed on an oral prayer). It has then been pleaded that the petitioner had sent FAX message as well as registered letters to the Joint Director and S.P., CBI, Delhi on May 24, 2000 intimating them his keenness to appear and join investigation, if required as per the orders of this Court. Photostat copies of same have been annexed with this application as Annexures A-5, A-6, A-7 and A-8. This application is also supported by an affidavit of petitioner. 8. Vide another Criminal Misc. Application, which too was filed on June 21, 2000 and has still to be numbered and registered, petitioner has pleaded subsequent facts and circumstances regarding conduct of the investigating agency. Broadly, it has been pleaded that the CBI at every step and stage has tried to mislead and over-reach the authority of this Court and further that the conduct of CBI reveals bias and mala-fides. 9. In the reply filed by CBI to the main application seeking permission to go abroad, it has, inter alia, been pleaded that petitioner was granted anticipatory bail vide orders dated May 19, 2000 by this Court wherein it was specified that in the event of his arrest, he would be released on bail on his furnishing surety to the satisfaction of the arresting officer but since the date of passing the said order, petitioner is not traceable and all efforts of the investigating agency to trace him have yielded no results. After the grant of bail to the petitioner, he has not surrendered his passport to the investigating agency or to the Court of Special Judge Delhi or any other trial Court. Further, a notice was issued to the petitioner to appear before the investigating agency and to surrender his passport forthwith to the CBI in order to ensure that he does not leave the country without information to the CBI. It has also been pleaded that grant of anticipatory bail does not entail the petitioner to leave the country and that Section 438(2)(iii) is an exception to the rule and not the rule itself. It is further pleaded that there is every likelihood that if petitioner is permitted to go abroad, he would not come back. It has also been pleaded that grant of anticipatory bail does not entail the petitioner to leave the country and that Section 438(2)(iii) is an exception to the rule and not the rule itself. It is further pleaded that there is every likelihood that if petitioner is permitted to go abroad, he would not come back. There is no need to mention anything further with regard to reply inasmuch as the arguments have been raised by learned counsel for the CBI on the pleas, that have already been noted. 10. I have already expressed my opinion that petitioner deserves to be given permission to go abroad for a period of fifteen days. Before, however, I might give my reasons, I would like to mention that no arguments raised by learned counsel representing the CBI on the merits of the case with regard to grant or non-grant of anticipatory bail can be entertained at this stage. That matter has assumed finality and if order passed by K.S. Kumaran, J. is not challenged, anything said in that order, that might go against the respondent-CBI, cannot be urged before this Court. Judgments, therefore, cited by learned counsel for the respondent, dealing with grant or non-grant of anticipatory bail, cannot be even noticed by this Court at this stage. 11. It is the positive case of petitioner that there is an urgent need for him to visit abroad. This stands fortified by FAX messages, reference whereof has been given above. It may be mentioned here that in FAX message, Annexure A-1, it has been mentioned as follows :- "As per our telephone discussion last week, you are requested to visit to Europe and particularly in U.K. market on or before 23rd June, 2000. In case of failure of attending the meeting we apprehend that will lose the entire developed business." 12. In FAX message, Annexure A-2, after giving reference of FAX message dated 19.6.2000, Annexure A-1, and subsequent telecom discussion, it has been mentioned that "now we request you to plan your schedule to visit latest by Monday (26th June) as after that some important customers shall not be available for next couple of weeks due to holidays after booking their requirements for next quarter with other suppliers and we apprehend that all our efforts so far made to develop these markets shall go in futile. Therefore, we once again request you not to postpone your programme further.....". Other FAX messages, Annexures A-3 and A-4 also support the contention of petitioner that he needs to go abroad for an urgent work. 13. It would be evident from Annexures A-5 to A-8, which are FAX messages and registered letters, that the petitioner himself had been making request to the Joint Director and SP, CBI, Delhi to intimate him the date on which he has to appear to join investigation, if required, as per orders of High Court granting him anticipatory bail. 14. It is interesting to note that in the reply that has been filed on behalf of the CBI and even during the course of arguments, nothing could at all be brought about to show that the petitioner was asked by the CBI to join investigation by sending him any communication on that behalf whatsoever but for the one now annexed with the reply, Annexure R-1. It is further interesting to note that this notice was sent to the petitioner on June 20, 2000 to appear before the S.P., CBI, Delhi on 23.6.2000 at 10 A.M. It may be recalled at this stage that notice of this application was given to the Standing Counsel for CBI on 18.6.2000 and the matter had come up for hearing on 19.6.2000, and, on the request of learned counsel for CBI, matter was adjourned to 20.6.2000, on which date arguments at some length were heard. On that day, Mr. Handa, learned counsel for the petitioner had vehemently contended before me that ever since order granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner has been passed, no notice at all had been sent to the petitioner asking him to appear and join investigation. It is in that context that the Court has observed that it is interesting to note that such a notice came to be issued to the petitioner only on 20.6.2000. 15. From the facts, as have been fully detailed above, this Court is of the considered view that as on today, there is no material on record that might suggest that the petitioner is trying to evade joining investigation or, for that matter, there being reasonable apprehension in the mind of CBI that if petitioner is permitted to go abroad, he would not come back. During the course of arguments, I have been informed that the petitioner has his wife and family and property, which is very substantial, in India. He has, thus, roots in this country and that again leaves an impression in the mind of the Court that there is no reason to believe that petitioner would not come back to India. Further, I find sufficient merit in the contention of Mr. Handa, learned counsel for the petitioner that if petitioner was perhaps to evade dragnet of law, despite orders passed in the bail application with regard to his seeking prior permission of the Court to go abroad, he could have well gone abroad as he had did have a passport. He could well suppress the fact that it has been mentioned in order dated May 19, 2000, that he can go abroad only after seeking permission of the Court. 16. Mr. Rajan Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent-CBI, during the course of arguments, also stated that the petitioner has not given his specimen signatures as also that once a notice has been issued to him to appear on 23.6.2000 and he has to attend the meeting on 26.6.2000, he can join investigation on 23.6.2000. 17. From totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that permission, as asked for needs to be granted to the petitioner. However, the same shall be subject to petitioner giving specimen signatures and joining investigation on 24.6.2000 at 10 A.M. and further that petitioner shall furnish two sureties in the sum of Rs. ten lacs each before the Joint/Additional/Assistant Registrar on duty in the High Court, undertaking therein that if he does not come back from abroad within fifteen days, the amount shall stand forfeited. Further, the petitioner would intimate the Indian Embassy in whichever country he might visit with regard to his arrival and departure, with his address. 18. At this stage, I am informed that the CBI has already intimated the Airport Authorities that petitioner cannot leave India. In view of orders passed by this Court, said intimation to Airport Authorities shall have no effect. Disposed of accordingly. A copy of this order be given dasti to counsel for the parties under the signature of the Court Secretary. Application allowed.