HC: Be circumspect in allowing foreign travel during pendency

Saurabh Malik

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, October 22

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that the right of a person to travel admittedly cannot be curtailed, but the courts have to be “even more circumspect” while granting such permission if the person is to travel outside the country during the pendency of a criminal case against him.

Canadian citizen was Booked in 2019

• An FIR was registered against the petitioner (Canadian citizen) on March 5, 2019, for subjecting a married woman to cruelty, at the Payal police station in Ludhiana district
• The petitioner’s counsel contended that the right to travel abroad could not be curtailed in view of presumption of innocence in the absence of conviction

The assertion by Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul came in a case where the counsel for a Canadian citizen, booked in a criminal case in India, contended that the right to travel abroad could not be curtailed in view of presumption of innocence in the absence of conviction.

The petitioner had filed the plea challenging the trial court’s order dated September 6, whereby his application seeking permission to go to Canada for a year was dismissed. The petitioner’s counsel, among other things, had contended that the petitioner was not only unable to join his job at Canada, but also meet his family since December 2018, due to the pendency of a criminal case against him. The Bench was told that an FIR against him was registered on March 5, 2019, for subjecting a married woman to cruelty and another offence under Sections 498-A and 406 of the IPC at the Payal police station in Ludhiana district.

Referring to High Court judgments in two cases, his counsel contended the cardinal principle was that every person was deemed to be innocent till proven guilty. As such, his fundamental right to travel abroad could not be curtailed merely because of the pendency of a criminal case against him.

After hearing the counsel, perusing the record and going through the case law relied upon, Justice Kaul said the petitioner was seeking permission to go to Canada for joining back his work. But he had not placed on record any supporting document to show he was actually employed in Canada. Not only this, the trial court while dismissing his plea rightly observed that his absence for a year would delay the trial.

“Coming to the case in hand, it would be apposite to observe that since the petitioner is a Canadian citizen, his assertion that he should be permitted to travel abroad is devoid of any merit as India too is a foreign country for him, and there could be a likelihood that in case the petitioner is permitted to travel to Canada, he may abscond,” Justice Kaul concluded, while dismissing the plea. 

Join Whatsapp Channel of The Tribune for latest updates.