New Delhi: A Delhi court on Thursday permitted lawyer Gautam Khaitan, an accused in the AgustaWestland VVIP chopper scam case, to travel abroad for six months.
Special Judge for CBI Sanjeev Aggarwal said, “In these facts and circumstances and considering his past conduct, applicant/accused Gautam Khaitan is permitted to travel abroad for six months”.
However, the court asked Khaitan to furnish security in the form of a bank guarantee of Rs.1 Crore or an FDR of like amount and submit an affidavit in the court disclosing his programme/itinerary, including flight numbers (to and fro), places of his stay at various stations abroad, and telephone numbers and addresses of his stay.
Khaitan was also asked to intimate the court 24 hours prior to leaving and within 72 hours of his return from abroad.
Khaitan has also been directed to file a complete self-attested copy of his passport along with a copy of his visa in the court on his return from abroad.
The court ordered Khaitan to neither tamper with the evidence nor try to influence any witness in any manner and not use the permission granted to him contrary to the rules.
In case he violates any of the conditions, the bank guarantee/FDR will be forfeited to the state.
The court also decreed that the accused should desist from requesting an extension for staying abroad.
An application had been filed on behalf of Khaitan seeking renewal/extension of order dated 11.11.2024 and permission to travel abroad for six months.
The Enforcement Directorate (ED) opposed the application by submitting that the allegations against the accused are grave and in the past, Khaitan had met one Ms. Pareen Khan and tried to influence her not to come to India.
The ED submitted that the accused is also facing trial in a black money case, which entails imprisonment up to 7 years. The ED also stated that Khaitan hasnot mentioned why his physical presence is essential in those countries and the meetings can also be done through virtual mode.
The judge said, “I have gone through the rival contentions. The accused has been travelling extensively in the past, and nothing has been brought to the notice of this court that the accused had flouted any terms and conditions of the travel order or had not returned on time”
