Can’t ground foreign travel plans due to criminal proceedings: HC
Saurabh Malik
Chandigarh, June 21
In a significant judgment on the right of an accused to travel abroad during the pendency of a trial, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that the initiation of criminal proceedings did not amount to denial of all fundamental rights and freedoms guaranteed under the Constitution.
Allows petitioner to travel to England
Allowing a plea filed by an accused to travel to England for being with his daughter facing a family dispute, the HC made it clear that turning down any such request without real and tangible basis would amount to denial of the right to pursue social and family obligations inherently embodied in Article 21 of the Constitution.
Allowing a plea filed by an accused to travel to England for being with his daughter facing a family dispute, Justice Vinod S Bhardwaj made it clear that turning down any such request without real and tangible basis would amount to denial of the right to pursue social and family obligations inherently embodied in Article 21 of the Constitution.
The petitioner had moved the HC against the State of Punjab and other respondents for quashing an order passed by a Mohali court on May 17, dismissing his application for permission to go abroad for a month. His counsel TPS Tung had told Justice Bhardwaj’s Bench that the petitioner, during his service, remained posted as an estate officer in GMADA.
A cheating and forgery case was registered against a person on July 22, 2013, under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code at the Phase-VIII police station in Mohali on the basis of a complaint sent by GMADA. The petitioner was not nominated as an accused even after the conclusion of the investigation. But he was eventually summoned as an additional accused on an application moved under Section 319, CrPC. The petitioner appeared before the trial court in January 2019 and had been regularly appearing before it since then.
Taking up the matter, Justice Bhardwaj asserted an apprehension was expressed by the respondents about the possibility of the petitioner not returning after going abroad. The petitioner’s counsel, on the other hand, had already undertaken to furnish “heavy surety to ensure his presence”.
Justice Bhardwaj added the apprehension did not appear to be based upon any valid or germane basis and it was also not the basis of the impugned order. In any case, the aspect could be taken care of by imposing conditions sufficient to dispel the apprehension.
Setting aside the impugned order, Justice Bhardwaj allowed the petitioner to travel abroad for a month after directing him to furnish complete details of the contact and place he was likely to reside during his foreign visit.
