Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Delhi, Single Bench of Justice Dr. Swarana Kanta Sharma, dismissed a petition challenging the forfeiture of a Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) worth ₹2 lakhs. The forfeiture was directed by the Sessions Court following the petitioner’s failure to comply with specific conditions imposed while granting permission to travel abroad in connection with ongoing criminal proceedings under Sections 376, 328, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Court recorded that non-compliance with such conditions, regardless of intention, must bear legal consequences.

The case arose from a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the impugned order dated 12.08.2022, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Saket Court, New Delhi. The underlying criminal case stemmed from FIR No. 558/2016, registered at Police Station Ambedkar Nagar, Delhi, alleging offences under Sections 376, 328, and 506 of the IPC.

Also Read: "Corruption Corrodes the Spine of a Nation": Supreme Court Upholds Conviction Under Prevention of Corruption Act; Alters Sentence Considering Age, Anxiety, and Extended Pendency

The petitioner, Dinesh Aneja, had previously secured anticipatory bail on 21.12.2016. One of the conditions attached was that he would not leave the country without prior permission from the competent court. Since the grant of bail, the petitioner had repeatedly sought and obtained permissions to travel abroad from both the concerned Magistrate and the Sessions Court on multiple occasions between 2017 and 2022.

On 15.07.2022, the Sessions Court permitted the petitioner to travel to the USA from 18.07.2022 to 10.08.2022, subject to four explicit conditions:

1. Filing of an affidavit before departure detailing his itinerary, addresses, and contact number during his stay abroad.

2. Filing of an affidavit upon return, along with a copy of his passport, indicating places visited.

3. Maintenance of an FDR of ₹2 lakhs, liable to forfeiture in case of violation.

4. Presence before the Court on the next date of hearing.

According to the petitioner, due to an unforeseen incident involving the theft of his car’s side mirrors just two days before his scheduled departure, he was unable to file the required affidavit before leaving. He claimed to have sent an unsigned and unverified affidavit via email to the Court on 02.08.2022 but admitted that it lacked attestation by an Oath Commissioner. Upon his return, the petitioner submitted attested affidavits on 12.08.2022.

The Sessions Court, after considering these facts, ordered the forfeiture of the FDR, stating that the petitioner had failed to fulfill the core condition of filing the affidavit before departure. The present petition challenged this forfeiture order.

Advocate Mr. Chirag Aneja, representing the petitioner, argued that the omission was unintentional and caused by unavoidable circumstances. He further submitted that the primary objective of the conditions was to ensure the petitioner’s return, which was duly complied with, as evidenced by his appearance before the Court on 12.08.2022. He urged that the forfeiture was punitive and excessive for a technical lapse.

Conversely, Mr. Manoj Pant, APP for the State, submitted that the petitioner had clearly violated the conditions imposed and the Sessions Court was justified in ordering the forfeiture as per the terms of the permission order.

Justice Dr. Swarana Kanta Sharma, after considering the submissions, recorded: "Once a conditional order is passed permitting a person facing a criminal trial to leave the country, such an order must be complied with strictly and in its entirety."

The Court rejected the explanation offered by the petitioner, observing: "His explanation that he had failed to comply with the said direction merely because the side mirrors of his car were stolen two days prior to his departure is devoid of any merit in this Court’s view."

Further, the Court stated the importance of such conditions, stating: "The pre-condition of furnishing details of stay, itinerary, and contact number was not a mere formality – it was integral to ensuring that the Court retained effective control over the petitioner’s movement and presence, and could secure his attendance as and when required."

The Court held that the petitioner, being fully familiar with the process and conditions, could not claim ignorance or casual oversight. The Court categorically stated: "The petitioner’s casual approach, wherein he claims that due to the urgency of travel he forgot to comply with the condition, cannot be accepted as a justification for not complying with the order."

Also Read: Patna High Court Quashes 22-Year-Old Criminal Case Against Gynaecologist | Terms It Abuse Of Process Citing Unimpeachable Medical Report On Kidney Removal Allegation

The Court concluded that any non-compliance, regardless of intention, warranted the forfeiture of the security deposit: "The said requirement formed the very soul of the order granting liberty to travel abroad, and any non-compliance, regardless of intention, cannot be taken lightly."

The High Court declined to interfere with the impugned order, holding: "In view of the above, this Court finds no reasons to interfere with the impugned order. The present petition is accordingly dismissed."

It was clarified that the observations made were solely for deciding the present petition and should not influence any future applications for travel abroad by the petitioner.

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioner: Mr. Chirag Aneja, Advocate

For the State: Mr. Manoj Pant, APP for State

Case Title: Dinesh Aneja versus State through Government of NCT of Delhi

Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:3630

Case Number: CRL.M.C. 4215/2022 & CRL.M.A. 17327/2022

Bench: Justice Dr. Swarana Kanta Sharma

[Read/Download order]