Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 391 (HP)

Rajbir Singh v. State of H. P.

2015-04-23

TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN

body2015
JUDGMENT Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge (Oral) By medium of this application, preferred under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has sought permission to go abroad. 2. The petitioner is an accused in FIR No. 43 of 2013 registered against him on 27.9.2013, under sections 407 and 120-B IPC at Police Station, Kotkhai. Vide orders dated 17.5.2014, this court directed the release of the petitioner on bail subject to certain conditions. 3. It is stated by the petitioner that his younger son Samay Deep is working in Australia and he alongwith his wife intended to visit him there. In support of his submission, he has annexed the statutory declaration as also copy of the pass-port. 4. Upon notice to the respondents, this application has been opposed only on the ground that investigation has not been completed and the main accused Girish Diwakar is yet to be arrested. It is further contended that at present there is no sufficient evidence to file the challan against the petitioner, but final decision can only be taken once the main accused is arrested. Lastly, it is contended that in case the petitioner is permitted to leave the country, he may not return, which may hamper the investigation. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of the parties. 6. Even as per the respondents, it is not in dispute that the main accused in this case is one Girish Diwakar, who still is at large. It is also not in dispute that petitioner is working as TVF (Ticket verifier) in Haryana Roadways, which is a government undertaking. It is also not in dispute that the trial of the case is yet to commence for want of submission of charge-sheet, which can only be filed after the main accused is apprehended. But then, can the travel of the petitioner be withheld indefinitely? The answer is obviously in the negative as the same would otherwise be violative of his Fundamental Right. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Meneka Gandhi vs. Union of India and another (1978) 1 SCC 248 , has held as follows: “193. But then, can the travel of the petitioner be withheld indefinitely? The answer is obviously in the negative as the same would otherwise be violative of his Fundamental Right. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Meneka Gandhi vs. Union of India and another (1978) 1 SCC 248 , has held as follows: “193. It seems to me that there can be little doubt that the right to travel and to go outside the country, which orders regulating issue, suspension or impounding, and cancellation of passports directly affect, must be included in rights to “personal liberty” on the strength of decisions of this Court giving a very wide ambit to the right to personal liberty (see: Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D. Ramarathnam, Assistant Passport Officer, Government of India, New Delhi, AIR 1967 SC 1836 ; Kharak Singh vs. State of U.P. AIR 1963 SC 1295 ).” 7. The other apprehension of the prosecution that petitioner may not return back, if permitted to go abroad appears to be equally unfounded. The petitioner has roots in India. His other son is working in India. 8. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is permitted to travel abroad for two months subject to the following conditions: i) that the petitioner shall furnish additional personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties of the like amount in the trial court; ii) that he shall furnish his address during stay in abroad; iii) that he shall not seek extension of his stay abroad on any ground including medical ground; iv) that he shall produce his sureties in the trial court to give statement(s) that they have no objection in case he is allowed to go abroad; v) that he shall file a detailed affidavit disclosing his detailed programme including his stay at various stations at abroad, telephone numbers and residential address; vi) that he shall furnish the details of persons to receive any process from the court during his stay in abroad on his behalf; vii) that he shall surrender back his pass-port on his return from abroad. 9. The petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.