Delhi High Court
Central Bureau Of Investigtation vs Sh. Deepak Puri & Anr. on 15 April, 2025
Author: Neena Bansal Krishna
Bench: Neena Bansal Krishna
$~27
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision:15th April, 2025
+ CRL.M.C. 1926/2021
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGTATION .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Anupam S. Sharma, SPP for CBI.
versus
SH. DEEPAK PURI & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Vijay Aggarwal, Mr. Rachit
Bansal, Mr. Ketan Kumar Roy, Mr.
Aditya Choudhary, Mr. Yash
Agrawal, Mr. Kartikay Kumar, Ms.
Muskan Aggarwal, Ms. Barkha
Rastogi and Mr Shekhar Pathak,
Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
J U D G M E N T (oral)
1. Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(hereinafter referred to as ‘CrPC‘) has been filed on behalf of the
Petitioner, CBI for setting-aside the impugned Order dated 06.04.2021, vide
which the learned Special Judge (PC Act), CBI-18, Rouse Avenue District
Courts, New Delhi, has dismissed the Application of CBI, for issuance of
Look Out Circular (LOC) against the Respondent No. 1- Deepak Puri and
Respondent No. 2 – Neeta Puri.
2. The Respondent No. 1- Deepak Puri has died and the proceedings qua
him stand abated.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
CRL.M.C. 1926/2021 Page 1 of 5
By:VIKAS ARORA
Signing Date:17.04.2025
18:17:04
3. It is submitted that RC No. BD1/2019/E/0006, was registered by
CBI/BSFB on 17.08.2019 under Section 120B read with Section
420/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as
‘IPC‘) and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 (‘PC Act‘ hereinafter) against M/s Moser Baer India
Ltd., Respondent No. 1-Mr. Deepak Puri, Respondent No.2 – Ms. Neeta
Puri, Mr. Sanjay Jain, Mr. Vineet Sharma, Mr. Ratul Puri and certain other
unknown public servants and private persons. A request for opening of LOC
was issued by the CBI against the Respondents, Mr. Deepak Puri and Ms.
Neeta Puri, to the Bureau of Immigration on 19.08.2019. The LOC was
quashed against Ms. Neeta Puri by learned Special Judge vide Order dated
24.01.2020 while against Mr. Deepak Puri, it was quashed vide Order dated
18.02.2020.
4. The CBI has challenged the impugned Order on the grounds that the
Complaints were received by the consortium Banks whereby quantum of
fraud has increased to Rs.354.5 crores. Earlier LOC against the
Respondents, had been quashed vide Orders dated 18.02.2020 and
24.01.2020. It has been overlooked by the learned CBI Judge that while
setting aside the earlier LOC Orders, the liberty was granted to
Petitioner/CBI, to take fresh steps if so warranted in law. Therefore, a
reference to earlier Orders, was erroneously made by the learned Special
Judge, overlooking the fact that there is likelihood of accused leaving the
country to evade trial/arrest.
5. Subsequent to OM No. 25016/31/2010-Imm dated 27.10.2010 in
which the parameters for issuing the LOC has been defined, was consciously
amended by Ministry of Home Affairs vide OM No. 25016/10/2017-Imm
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
CRL.M.C. 1926/2021 Page 2 of 5
By:VIKAS ARORA
Signing Date:17.04.2025
18:17:04
(Pt) dated 05.12.2017, to the extent that in exceptional cases, LOC’s could
also be issued, as would not be covered by the earlier guidelines, where the
departure of a person from India, appears to be detrimental to the economic
interests of India or the larger public interest at any given point of time. It is
submitted that the impugned Order does not make any reference to the
amended Guidelines.
6. It is further stated that with the rise of businessmen absconding after
commission of white-collar crimes, as also increase in some economic
crimes having direct repercussions on the financial stability of the country,
Union of India, considering the economic interest and the larger public
interest of the State, resolved to put certain additional curbs and travel of
such white-collar economic offenders. The intention of the Government to
treat such offences more seriously can be gathered from the fact that OM
No. 25016/31/2010-IMM dated 26.10.2010, was further amended on
05.12.2017 wherein it was mentioned that LOC could be issued even in
cases which are not covered by the earlier guidelines, inter alia, if the
departure of a person from India is detrimental to the economic interest of
India or that departure should not be permitted in larger public interest at
any point of time.
7. Other OM’s dated 19.09.2018 and 12.10.2018, SFIO and banks
respectively also empowered CBI to make request for opening of LOC. It is,
therefore, submitted that in the present case, the issuance of LOC was in
larger public interest or economic interest of the country and thus, the
learned Special Judge, erred in dismissal of the Application.
8. It is further asserted that the uncooperative, adamant and arrogant
attitude has been adopted by the Respondents towards the Investigating
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
CRL.M.C. 1926/2021 Page 3 of 5
By:VIKAS ARORA
Signing Date:17.04.2025
18:17:04
Agency. Interrogation of the Accused during investigation, in order to
unearth the manner in which the crime has been committed and to recover
the proceeds of crime, has been effectively defeated by the Respondents,
time and again by not co-operating in the investigation.
9. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submits that since the
investigations are still on-going, the impugned Order be set-aside.
10. Learned counsel on behalf of the Respondents has submitted that the
Charge-Sheet had already been filed on 02.07.2024. Moreover, CBI itself
had no objection on 26.11.2024 to grant of Bail to the Respondents. There is
no merit in the present Petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.
11. Submissions heard and the record perused.
12. The circumstances in which the Look Out Notice can be opened has
been explained in the decision of this Court in Sumer Singh Salkan v. Asst.
Director & Ors. W.P.(Crl) No. 1315/2008. decided on 11.08.2010. It was
observed that recourse to LOC can be taken by Investigating Agency in
cognizable offences under IPC or other penal Laws, where the accused was
deliberately evading arrest or not appearing in the trial court despite NBWs
and other coercive measures and there was likelihood of the accused leaving
the country to evade trial/arrest
13. It is pertinent to observe that the parameters for issuing the LOC have
been amended by Ministry of Home Affairs vide OM No. 25016/10/2017-
Imm (Pt) dated 05.12.2017 to the extent that LOCs can be issued in
exceptional cases where the departure of a person from India appears to be
detrimental for the economic interests of India or in larger public interest.
14. However, in the present case, an FIR was registered on 17.07.2019
under Sections Section 120B read with Section 420/468/471 of the IPC and
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
CRL.M.C. 1926/2021 Page 4 of 5
By:VIKAS ARORA
Signing Date:17.04.2025
18:17:04
Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of PC Act against M/s Moser Baer
India Private Limited and its Directors. Respondent No. 2- Neeta Puri is
one of the directors of M/s Moser Baer. There is no allegation as to the
specific role of Respondent No. 2 except engaging in criminal conspiracy
with the other Directors and other public servants to cheat Central Bank of
India.
15. The grounds for seeking LOC was the adamant and non co-operative
attitude of the Respondent No.2 during investigations. However, it is an
admitted fact that the Respondent No. 2 has joined the investigation multiple
times; no NBWs are issued against her nor the Respondent is evading arrest.
Additionally, there is no likelihood of the her evading trial/arrest given her
conduct, as she had been allowed to travel abroad five times and she has
duly returned back to India within the stipulated time period and had
complied with all the conditions imposed.
16. Admittedly, the Charge-Sheet stands filed on 02.07.2024 and CBI
itself had ‘No Objection’ on 26.11.2024 to grant of Bail to the Respondent
No. 2- Neeta Puri.
17. Neither of the twin conditions for opening a LOC are satisfied nor
have any other exceptional circumstances been shown to justify the LOC.
18. In light of the above discussion, there is no infirmity in the Order of
Ld. Judge, CBI quashing the LOC. There is no merit in the present Petition
which is hereby dismissed and disposed of accordingly along with pending
Application(s).
(NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA)
JUDGE
APRIL, 15, 2025/RS
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
CRL.M.C. 1926/2021 Page 5 of 5
By:VIKAS ARORA
Signing Date:17.04.2025
18:17:04