The sessions court stayed till March 2 the order of a metropolitan magistrate, after Pachauri's counsel filed a revision petition before it alleging it was perverse to say that his client had deliberately violated the condition.
"Issue notice of the revision petition to respondent (State) with PF (process fee) returnable for March 2, 2016. Trial Court Record be requisitioned for next date of hearing. Meanwhile, the order dated February 19 passed by metropolitan magistrate shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing," Additional Sessions Judge Raj Kumar Tripathi said.
The court had said that Pachauri "deliberately and unilaterally extended the liberty granted to him. Thus, it is a clear case of violation of terms and conditions, subject to which, the accused was permitted to travel abroad vide order dated February 15."
It had said Pachauri failed to return to India as per schedule from Sharjah, and there was nothing on record to show that schedule of the event was changed at last minute.
More From This Section
(Reopens LGD27)
The plea also said when Pachauri was granted permission to travel to Sharjah from February 16-18, the magistrate had recorded the statement of the Investigating Officer that the investigation is complete and charge sheet is under scrutiny.
It claimed that since the investigation is over, Pachauri is not required to seek court's permission to travel abroad, as per the March 21, 2015 order of the sessions court.
"Magistrate erred in implementing the order dated March 21, 2015 passed by this court in as much as when the IO of the case informed the magistrate that the investigation is almost complete and charge sheet is submitted for scrutiny with the prosecution department, the magistrate ought to have held that as the investigation is complete, the petitioner is not required to seek permission because the March 21, 2015 order mandated that petitioner shall take permission to travel abroad till the investigation was not over," the plea said.
However on February 18, Pachauri moved an application submitting that due to a change in the schedule of the award ceremony, he had to extend his trip by one day and would be arriving on February 19 instead.
The court, while refusing to consider his submission, had said Pachauri had not sought permission to extend the trip in view of an order of a sessions court binding him to seek nod of the court each time he went abroad.
The FIR was registered on charges of sexual harassment under IPC sections 354, 354(a), 354(d) (molestation) and 506 (criminal intimidation).