Case Laws-Permission to go abroad during pendency of criminal case.

Case Laws on Permission to go abroad: To travel abroad is a fundamental right.

1.SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before:- M.B. Shah and Y.K. Sabharwal, JJ. Petn.(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) Nos. 1828, 1829 with 1868 of 2001. D/d. 12.5.2001. Srichand P. Hinduja – Petitioner Versus State Through C.B.I., New Delhi – RespondentCriminal Procedure Code, Section 438 – Bail allowed to Hinduja brothers in offence under Section, 420 Indian Penal Code and 5(2) of Prevention Act – Two of them permitted to go abroad – No matter they acquired foreign nationality – They were Indian Nationals prior to few years; apart from various industrial activities they are also involved in other social and charitable activities; they were throughout co-operating with Investigation Agency
2.PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT Before:- Arvind Kumar, J. Crl. M. No. 29462-M of 2009. D/d. 30.10.2009. Anjal Kumar @ Angel Kumar – Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another – RespondentsPetitioner allowed to go abroad to attend a meeting subject to his furnishing security of Rs. 4 lacs with one surety in the like amount. B. Criminal Proceedings – Cardinal principal of criminal jurisprudence, is that every person is innocent till proved guilty – The Court presumes a human being to behave normally – The fundamental right of civil right cannot be curtailed merely because a criminal case is pending against a person.
3.KERALA HIGH COURT Before:- R. Narayana Pisharadi, J. Crl.MC No. 2695 of 2021. D/d. 11.6.2021. Arun Baby – Petitioner Versus State of Kerala and ors. – RespondentsCriminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 317(1) – Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 498A a n d 506(i) – Permission to accused to go abroad for employment – If Court is satisfied that, in interests of justice, personal attendance of accused before it need not be insisted on, then court has power to dispense with his attendance – Offences alleged against petitioner are punishable under Sections 498A and 506(i) of Indian Penal Code and not need for prosecution witnesses to identify him in court as offender – If petitioner undertakes that he would appear before trial court on all hearing dates as may be specifically directed by that court, he can be exempted from personal appearance before court and he can be allowed to be represented through counsel and permission can be granted to him to leave country for employment – Hence, permission to petitioner to go abroad.
4.PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT Before:- Suvir Sehgal, J. CRM-M-19373 of 2022 (O&M). D/d. 5.08.2022. Gaurav Raheja – Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another – RespondentsCriminal Procedure Code, 1973 Section 482 Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sections 498A and 406 Rejection of application for permission to go to Australia for a period of six months to take up employment – Cruelty – Petitioner is facing trial under Section 498A Indian Penal Code – He is permanent resident of Australia – Earlier he was permitted to travel abroad and he had returned back before enhanced due date – He has offered to submit title deed of property of his father as security – Permission granted subject to certain conditions.
5.SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before:-L. Nageswara Rao and M.R. Shah, JJ. Civil Appeal No.3802 of 2019 (Arising Out of SLP (Civil) No. 1655 of 2019. D/d. 9.4.2019. Satish Chandra Verma – Appellants Versus Union of India and Others – RespondentsRight to travel abroad is fundamental right. Right to travel abroad is important basic human right for it nourishes independent and self-determining creative character of individual – Pendency of departmental proceedings cannot be ground to prevent appellant from travelling abroad – Respondents are directed to permit appellant to travel during said period
6.PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT Before:-Mr. Ajay Tewari, J. CRM-M-2150 of 2019 (O&M). D/d. 23.1.2019. Utkarsh Pahwa – Petitioner Versus Assistant Director (PMLA), Directorate of Enforcement – Respondentin normal circumstances, permission can be granted to the petitioner to travel abroad being his fundamental right to travel abroad, but the conditions are to be imposed for regulating and securing his presence during the trial.
7.SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before:-Adarsh Kumar Goel and Uday Umesh Lalit, JJ. Criminal Appeal No. 1265 of 2017 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 2013 of 2017). D/d. 27.7.2017. Rajesh Sharma & ors. – Appellants Versus State of U.P. & Anr. – RespondentsLarge number of cases are filed under Section 498A alleging harassment of married women – Many of such complaints are not bona fide. vii) Personal appearance of all family members and particularly outstation members may not be required and the trial court ought to grant exemption from personal appearance or permit appearance by video conferencing without adversely affecting progress of the trial. Impounding of passport and LOC should not be routine.
8.CALCUTTA HIGH COURT Before:- Joymalya Bagchi, J. C.R.R. No. 2199 of 2013. D/d. 4.12.2013. Sri Amarendra Nath Ghosh – Petitioner Versus State of West Bengal and another – RespondentsHeld that to put an absolute embargo on travel of the petitioner abroad till the conclusion of the trial would amount to an unreasonable restrictions on his fundamental right to free movement including his right to go abroad particularly when such activity is linked to his livelihood – Allowed to go abroad on adequate restrictions imposed to ensure his timely return to India to face trial.
9.MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (Indore Bench) Before:- Sujoy Paul, J. Writ Petition No. 5692 of 2020. D/d. 7.12.2021. Parties Name Hardik Shah – Petitioner Versus Union of India & Another – Respondent  Unjustified impounding of passport of a travel vlogger affects his fundamental right to livelihood. Impugned action affects right of livelihood of a travel blogger who keeps body and soul together by travelling abroad and earning his livelihood therefrom

Advocate Anoop Verma, Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh