SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Abhijat Paliwal vs State Of Haryana on 12 March, 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH

CRM-3166-2019 in/and
CRM-M-25229-2018
Date of decision: 12.03.2019

Abhijat Paliwal
…Applicant/petitioner
Versus

State of Haryana …Respondent

CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA

Present: Ms.Tanu Bedi, Advocate, for the applicant/petitioner.

Ms.Vibha Tewari, AAG, Haryana
along with ASI-Virender Singh, PS Chandni Bagh, Panipat.

Mr.Rohit Chandel, Advocate, for
Mr.Saurabh Gautam, Advocate, for the complainant.

*****

G.S.SANDHAWALIA, J. (Oral)

Petitioner seek grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No.1069

dated 14.11.2017, registered under Sections 403, 405, 409, 415, 418, 420,

463, 465, 471 and 120-B IPC at Chandni Bagh Police Station, District

Panipat.

When the matter came up for hearing on the first date, i.e.,

on 06.06.2018, the following order was passed:

“Counsel inter alia contends that the petitioner Abhijat
Paliwal in Crl. Misc. No. M-25229 of 2018 who is son of
Ajay Paliwal, petitioner in Crl. Misc. No. M-25223 of 2018
had entered into a matrimonial alliance with the complainant
on 10.05.2006. They were successful in running various
businesses together but on account of matrimonial
disharmony, separation had taken place on 22.12.2015. The
first FIR No. 212 was lodged on 01.07.2017 (Annexure P-3)

1 of 7
18-03-2019 02:52:03 :::
CRM-3166-2019 in/and CRM-M-25229-2018 -2-

under Sections 34, 406, 498-A, 506 IPC at Police Station,
Gurugram. Allegations as such of misappropriation for the
last 10 years of the crores of rupees from the business was
also mentioned. The petitioner-husband had got interim
anticipatory bail in the said FIR, which was confirmed on
31.07.2017 (Annexure P-13). The present FIR thereafter has
been lodged on 14.11.2017 under Sections 403, 405, 409,
415, 418, 420, 463, 465, 471 and 120-B IPC at P.S. Chandni
Bagh, District Panipat (Annexure P-1).

It is accordingly submitted that the second FIR as such
is only an attempt to put further pressure upon the petitioner
and his family members after the anticipatory bail had been
granted in the earlier FIR. This aspect has not been kept in
mind by the Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat while
declining the bail application. It is accordingly contended that
the dispute is absolutely financial and for the control of the
business and matters are also pending before the National
Company Law Tribunal. An Administrator has also been
appointed, who is not less than a retired Supreme Court
Judge. It is submitted that in such circumstances, it is only a
cloak and the dagger attempt to put pressure to get financial
benefits by resorting to criminal proceedings.

Notice of motion for 08.08.2018.

Mr. Rohit Khanna, Advocate accepts notice on behalf
of the complainant.

In the meantime, it is directed that the petitioners shall
join investigation and in the event of arrest of the petitioners,
they shall be released on ad-interim bail by the Investigating
Officer. The petitioners shall join investigation as and when
required and shall comply with the conditions envisaged in
Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

Photocopy of the order be placed on the file of
connected case.”

Thereafter, on 27.07.2018, an application bearing CRM-

24892-2018 was filed by Abhijat Paliwal, the husband, seeking

2 of 7
18-03-2019 02:52:03 :::
CRM-3166-2019 in/and CRM-M-25229-2018 -3-

permission to travel abroad, i.e. United States and Spain for the period

commencing from 30.07.2018 to 14.08.2018, for attending the business

activities, which was allowed by the Coordinate Court and he was

allowed to travel abroad, subject to various conditions.

On 08.08.2018, it was brought to the notice of the Court the

terms of the family settlement had been signed by the parties and they

were directed to appear before the Investigating Officer on 17.08.2018.

Thereafter, another application bearing CRM-31241-2018

was filed for permission to travel abroad, i.e., Japan and United States for

a period of 3 weeks, which was allowed by the Coordinate Bench on

07.09.2018 for a period from 11.09.2018 to 03.10.2018, subject to

various undertakings.

In the meantime, parties also participated on the talks of

compromise.

For the third time, another application, bearing CRM-38501-

2018 was filed seeking permission to travel abroad for 3 months w.e.f.

09.11.2018 to 09.02.2019, which was allowed on 02.11.2018, for a

period of 10 days, from 13.11.2018 to 23.11.2018.

Parties had also been directed to appear before this Court on

several dates and they had come present. Thereafter, application bearing

CRM-3166-2019 had been filed for modification/substitution of the

conditions imposed by this Court in the order dated 06.06.2018, whereby

requirement was provided to move an application before each foreign

travel and furnish the details of the itinerary, his address during his stay

abroad, to the Investigating Officer, before leaving the country. Notice of

3 of 7
18-03-2019 02:52:03 :::
CRM-3166-2019 in/and CRM-M-25229-2018 -4-

the application was also issued by the Coordinate Bench, which also

noticed on 07.02.2019 that a compromise is in progress and the dispute is

only of certain terms and conditions which was likely to be sorted out.

On 20.02.2019, the matter was listed before this Court, after

obtaining orders from the Hon’ble Chief Justice, since the order dated

06.06.2018, passed by this Court, was sought to be varied in CRM-3166-

2019 and the parties were directed to come present on the next date of

hearing, i.e., 28.02.2019, on which date, the following facts were noticed:

“Petitioner-Abhijat Paliwal along with the
complainant-Asmita Dwivedi Paliwal are present in Court.
The Court has interacted with both the parties. It transpires
that the matter has been settled with the intervention of the
counsels. It is on this account that the counsels pray for some
more time, so that final settlement entered into between the
parties, can be placed on record, on or before the next date of
hearing.

In such circumstances, further proceedings are deferred
for 07.03.2019.

Interim order to continue.

Photocopy of this order be placed on the record of the
other connected case.”

Thereafter, on 07.03.2019, the settlement agreement entered

into between the parties was also placed before this Court whereby it was

noticed that the draft settlement/agreement has been entered,

inadvertently. It had also been noticed that as per the settlement/

agreement, a sum of Rs.4,16,00,000/- had also been received by the

complainant and the amount due is Rs.2,24,00,000/-, which is to be paid

at the time of filing of the Second Motion of the mutual divorce petition.

This Court is informed that the First Motion was recorded

4 of 7
18-03-2019 02:52:03 :::
CRM-3166-2019 in/and CRM-M-25229-2018 -5-

yesterday, i.e., 11.03.2019 by the Family Court at Gurugram. In such

circumstances, it is apparent that the parties have acted upon the mutual

agreement, as such, inter se and are proceeding ahead to resolve the issue

amongst themselves in a proper mode and with maturity, as is expected in

a matrimonial matter, especially keeping in view the background to

which the parties belong, which was one of the grounds for granting the

interim protection on 06.06.2018, that it was more of a dispute on

account of financial control of companies.

State Counsel, on instructions from ASI-Virender Singh,

submits that the petitioner has been cooperating with the investigating

and has joined at all relevant time and is not further required for the

purpose of investigation. As is noticed, once the parties have themselves

also agreed to settle the dispute which is incorporated in detail in the

settlement/ agreement, which would put an end to at least 13 litigations,

in such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the order dated

06.06.2018 is liable to be confirmed.

However, keeping in view the fact that the petitioner has

been permitted to travel abroad on three separate occasions and has also

filed another application bearing CRM-3166-2019, counsel for the

petitioner is well justified that the condition incorporated in Section 438

(2) (iii) Cr.P.C., whereby this Court may include such condition that the

person should not leave India without the previous permission of the

Court, is not liable to be incorporated in the final order, confirming the

anticipatory bail application.

For the said benefit, counsel for the petitioner has relied

5 of 7
18-03-2019 02:52:03 :::
CRM-3166-2019 in/and CRM-M-25229-2018 -6-

upon similar relief granted in CRM-M-55170-2018 titled Ryan Augustine

Pinto Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, decided on 22.02.2019,

wherein the prayer was for modification of the terms and conditions

incorporated in the order granting bail and the condition of not leaving

the country without prior permission of the Court, was allowed, on the

ground that he is a frequent visitor to foreign countries, to participate in

conferences etc. and is promoting the business of the group of industries.

Relief clause of the said judgment reads as under:

“Accordingly, by considering the submissions and the
reasons as mentioned above, the present petition is allowed
and the condition of seeking prior permission before leaving
to abroad is modified to the extent that the petitioner now
onwards shall not be required to take permission of the Court
to travel abroad. However, the petitioner is directed to furnish
an undertaking in writing before the Investigating Agency that
he will make himself available during course of investigation
or trial as and when he is required apart from furnishing the
details of his travel abroad to the Investigating Officer
including the place where he is likely to stay and the countries
he proposes to visit and the date of departure and of return.
This condition will be deemed to have been incorporated as a
condition of bail till the presentation of final report.
Thereafter, the same undertaking be furnished to the trial
Court. The trial Court would also ensure that the trial of the
case shall not be adjourned or deferred on the ground that the
petitioner is undertaking/going to travel abroad.

It is also made clear that the petitioner shall inform the
Investigating Agency/trial Court a week in advance of his
visit abroad. He is also directed to furnish the aforesaid
undertaking on affidavit to the Investigating Agency/trial
Court and also state on affidavit that he would not undertake a
foreign visit on the effective dates of hearing before the trial
Court i.e when the evidence in this case is being recorded.

6 of 7
18-03-2019 02:52:03 :::
CRM-3166-2019 in/and CRM-M-25229-2018 -7-

The petitioner is also directed to indicate the Airport from
where, he would be boarding and de-boarding. He is also
directed to furnish a surety bond amounting to Rs.one crore
keeping in view the apprehension of CBI as pointed out in the
arguments. A liberty is granted to the CBI/trial Court to get
this order revoked in the event of petitioner fails to comply
with this order at any point of time during investigation/trial.”

Accordingly, keeping in view the above and the fact that this

Court had permitted the petitioner to travel abroad three times and that he

had, thereafter, come back and come present before this Court and the

matter involved is matrimonial issue and the petitioner is not a financial

fugitive, the prayer made is liable to be accepted.

The petitioner is also directed to furnish an undertaking in

writing to make himself available during the course of investigation or

trial, as and when he is required. Apart from that, he will also furnish the

details of his travel abroad to the Investigating Officer including the

place where he is likely to stay and the countries he proposes to visit and

the date of departure and of return. In case the compromise does not

fructify, it will be open to the petitioner to file appropriate application

before the Trial Court, seeking permission to travel abroad and take

appropriate orders, accordingly.

With the above observations, the present petition is disposed

of, confirming the anticipatory bail of the petitioner.

March 12th, 2019 (G.S.SANDHAWALIA)
sailesh JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No

Whether Reportable: Yes/No

7 of 7
18-03-2019 02:52:03 :::

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation