ORDER 1. This petition under section 482 of CrPC has been filed against the order dated 11.2.2016, passed by IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Indore in Criminal Revision No.830/2015, whereby affirmed the order dated 29.9.2015 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore in Criminal Case No.36871/2006. 2. This petition has been allowed by this Court vide order dated 4.5.2016. Subsequently, non-applicant's petition Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.6099/2016, has been allowed on 15.7.2016 and the said order has been recalled. 3. Brief facts of this case are that non-applicant/complainant has filed a complaint against the applicant that the applicant was entrusted precious stones but he dishonestly misappropriated the same and committed an offence of criminal breach of trust. On this basis the applicant is facing trial for the offence under section 406 of IPC since the year 2002. On 26.2.2002, trial Court has granted the bail to the applicant with the condition that the applicant shall surrender his passport and shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court. In compliance applicant has deposited his passport in trial Court. On 4.9.2015, the applicant has filed an application for permission to visit Thailand for his treatment and to meet his grandson also. Learned Magistrate vide order dated 29.9.2015 dismissed the application. Applicant preferred the revision that too was dismissed. Being aggrieved applicant has filed this petition. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is facing trial since the year 2002 for the offence under section 406 of IPC, for which maximum 3 years' jail sentence is provided. During the currency of bail period the applicant had not violated any of the condition imposed by the Court. To travel outside the country, is included in the rights to personal liberty, as held by Hon'ble apex Court in the case of Menka Gandhi v. Union of India [ (1978)1 SCC 248 ], and the Court cannot impound passport as provisions of Passport Act prevail over Code of Criminal Procedure, as held by Hon'ble apex Court in the case of Suresh Nanda v. CBI [2008 AIR SCW 898]. Therefore, the order of Courts below declined to grant permission to go to Thailand for his treatment is against the right of personal liberty and against the provisions of Passport Act. Hence, the order passed by Courts below be set aside. Therefore, the order of Courts below declined to grant permission to go to Thailand for his treatment is against the right of personal liberty and against the provisions of Passport Act. Hence, the order passed by Courts below be set aside. The applicant is ready to deposit cash security and shall abide the conditions imposed by this Court. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the non-applicant vehemently opposes the prayer and submits that earlier applicant's petition Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.2632/2007 for permission for renewal of passport has been dismissed by this Court. In the application, it is nowhere mentioned that naturopathy treatment facility is not available in India. Revisional Court vide order dated 11.2.2016, while rejecting the revision, has directed the trial Court to decide the case within six months. In such circumstances, trial will not take much time. If the applicant is permitted to go out of India, then the progress of the trial will be hampered. In this case, precious stones of more than Rs.25 Crores are involved and the possibility cannot be ruled out that the applicant may not return back from Thailand. In such circumstances, the application be dismissed. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the record. 7. Firstly I would like to refer the judgment of Hon'ble apex Court in the case of Satwant Singh v. APO New Delhi [ AIR 1967 SC 1836 ], held that : “Art. 21. No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.” If the right to travel is a part of the personal liberty of a person he cannot be deprived of his right except according to the procedure established by law. This Court in Gapalan's case, 1950 SCR 88: ( AIR 1950 SC 27 ) has held that 'law' in that Article means enacted law and it is conceded that the State has not made any law depriving or regulating the right of a person to travel abroad.” Hon'ble apex Court approved this dictum in the case of Menka Gandhi v. Union of India [ (1978)1 SCC 248 ]. 8. With the aforesaid dictum of Hon'ble apex Court, it is clear that right to go abroad is a right of personal liberty within the meaning of Article 21 of Constitution of India. 8. With the aforesaid dictum of Hon'ble apex Court, it is clear that right to go abroad is a right of personal liberty within the meaning of Article 21 of Constitution of India. Thus, no person can be deprived of his right to go abroad unless there is law made by State prescribing the procedure for so depriving him and deprivation is effected strictly in accordance with such procedure. 9. Hon'ble apex Court in the judgment Suresh Nanda (supra), held that there is a difference between seizing a document and impounding a document. A seizure is made at a particular moment when a person or authority takes into his possession some property which was earlier not in his possession. Thus, the seizure is done at a particular moment of time. However, if after seizing of a property or document, said property or document is restrained for some period of time, then such retention amounts impounding of property/document. Hon'ble apex Court also held that even the Court cannot impound a passport though no doubt, section 104 of CrPC states that the Court may, if it thinks fit, impound the document or thing produced before it. This provision will only enable the Court to impound any document or thing other than a passport. The Passport Act is a special law while Criminal Procedure Code is a general law. It is well settled that special law prevails over the general law. Hence, impounding of passport cannot be done by the Court under section 104 of the CrPC though it can impound other documents or thing. 10. The applicant is facing trial for last more than 14 years for the offence under section 406 IPC for which maximum 3 years jail sentence is provided. It is also to be noted that the revisional Court has directed to conclude the trial within 6 months vide order dated 11.2.2016 thereafter 6 months have already been expired on 10.8.2016, however, trial has not been concluded. The case has been instituted on a private complaint. No other criminal case is pending against the applicant. There is no basis of this argument that in case, the applicant is permitted to go Thailand for his treatment, he will not return back. So far as the facility of naturopathy treatment is concerned, a person can go anywhere for treatment as per his choice. No other criminal case is pending against the applicant. There is no basis of this argument that in case, the applicant is permitted to go Thailand for his treatment, he will not return back. So far as the facility of naturopathy treatment is concerned, a person can go anywhere for treatment as per his choice. He cannot be compelled to take treatment in India only. 11. In such circumstances, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for granting permission to go Thailand for his treatment. The order passed by the Courts below are not justified and are hereby set aside. 12. Thus, the application is allowed on following conditions :- (i) Applicant shall deposit an FDR of Rs.5,00,000/- (Five lacs rupees) of any nationalized Bank for a period of one year in the name of Court, and (ii) Shall furnish an undertaking that he shall return back to India within two months from the date when he leaves India, if he fails to do so, the Court may proceed to forfeit the aforesaid amount. Upon furnishing FDR and undertaking trial Court shall deliver the passport to the applicant to go to Thailand. The petition is allowed as indicated above. Let copy of the order be sent to trial Court for compliance. Vishal Baheti for applicant; A. S. Rathore for non-applicant.