The judge observed that since the arguments on framing of charges were in its final stages, the court does not deem fit to permit the accused to leave the country. He also observed that if Rajiv Gupta was unable to make it on the day the order on charges was given, the accused in custody -- Sanjeev Nanda -- might appeal for bail on the grounds that his trial is getting delayed.

Earlier, pleading on behalf of his client, counsel Dinesh Mathur submitted that conditions could not be imposed on an accused person on bail. He cited a section of the Criminal Procedure Code to support his contention. Special Prosecutor, I.U. Khan, however, reminded the court about the bail order passed by the magistrate on January 11. He had ordered the accused, Rajiv Gupta, to surrender his passport and ask for permission before leaving the country. Before the application came up for hearing, Siddhartha Gupta's lawyer, R.N. Mittal contested the prosecution's claim that his client was present in the car on the day of the incident.

The prosecution arguments, he said, did not correspond to the chargesheet filed against his client. He said the police have not charged Siddhartha with culpable homicide not amounting to murder, but for destroying evidence and criminal conspiracy.

The counsel then argued that the prosecution does not have evidence to prove Siddhartha's presence in the car. He read out the two statements of prosecution witness, Hari Shankar. He pointed to the difference in the two statements. ``The statement given on January 10 says Shankar saw one person in the car. But two-and-a-half months later, he recalls seeing two persons.

Manoj has also specified two persons and so has Kulkarni,'' Mittal said.