SANJAY KUMAR PATWARI Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Section 439(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 for relaxation of the condition of bail, which was granted by learned metropolitan Magistrate, 21st Court, Calcutta in RC case no. 15 of 2014 on condition that the petitioner shall not leave the country without the permission of the learned Magistrate.

(2.) The petitioner has specifically stated in his application that the petitioner is an expert and professional independent business consultant in the field of coal, steel and iron ore export. The Rosemary Sponge and Ispat Private Limited and Rashmi Metaliks Limited had requested the petitioner to accede his consent to represent as the consultant of the respective companies in China and Thiland during the period from 15.12.2017 to 03.01.2018. The petitioner being an independent business consultant had acceded his consent to both the aforesaid companies by agreeing to attend the business meetings in China followed by Thiland for the period of 20th December, 2017 to 03rd January, 2018. Learned senior Advocate Mr. Mukherjee appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that on earlier occasion this Court permitted the petitioner to attend such business meetings in China for a limited period vide the order passed in CRM no. 9381 of 2016. Learned Advocate Mr. Ali appearing on behalf of the Central Bureau of Investigation submitted that such order in CRM no. 9381 of 2016 was obtained by the petitioner in absence of any representation from the CBI and thereafter the petitioner had also filed similar application during vacation before this Court but ultimately the said application was not pressed by the petitioner on 4th July, 2017 vide the order passed in CRM 6200 of 2017.

(3.) Record reveals that the petitioner is an expert and professional independent business consultant. It appears from paragraph 15 of the application that the petitioner was requested by company to represent the company and I do not find any viable reason to hold that absence of petitioner will have telling effect on the aforesaid companies. Moreover, the conduct of the petitioner as it appears from the aforesaid orders is also not beyond the scope of criticism.