Divine Duty vs. Due Process: High Court Grants Travel Relief to Convicted Appellant

In a recent order reflecting a balance between religious observance and judicial oversight, the Bombay High Court at Aurangabad has permitted a man convicted under the Indian Electricity Act to travel abroad for the Haj pilgrimage.

Justice Abhay S. Waghwase, presiding over the application, granted the relief despite the pendency of a criminal appeal, noting that the long-standing nature of the case necessitated a humanitarian approach to the applicant's religious requirements.

A Legal Impasse: Seeking Passage During Pendency

The applicant, Rahim Khan Sandu Khan, is currently embroiled in an appeal against his conviction in Special Case No. 58 of 2007, which pertains to offences under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity Act. While the High Court had previously suspended his sentence and granted him bail, the legal status of an "appellant" often complicates administrative hurdles, particularly concerning international travel.

With the appeal—originally filed in 2016—yet to be concluded, the applicant sought the Court's intervention to allow him to travel to Saudi Arabia between April and September 2025. The applicant emphasized that he had secured slots through the Haj Committee for himself and his family members, making the pilgrimage a time-sensitive commitment.

The Balancing Act: Liberty and Compliance

The legal question before the Court was whether a convicted individual, currently out on bail pending appeal, could be permitted to leave the country for religious reasons without compromising the integrity of the judicial process.

The applicant argued that the pilgrimage is a "pious" and "compulsory" religious duty. Recognizing that there was no immediate prospect of the appeal reaching a final hearing given its vintage, the Court found the request reasonable, provided that the applicant’s presence could be secured through stringent conditions.

Key Observations

The Court’s reasoning hinged on the pragmatic reality of the current judicial calendar. As Justice Waghwase noted:

> "In view of the grounds raised in the application, and as appeal is of the year 2016, and there is no immediate chance of appeal being taken for hearing, for religious purpose, application deserves to be allowed."

The decision underscores a judicial inclination to preserve individual liberties—especially those tied to religious practice—when the state cannot demonstrate an immediate risk of flight or prejudice to the ongoing proceedings.

Strict Conditions for Passage

The Court’s permission is far from unconditional. To ensure the applicant remains within reach of the law, the Court has mandated a rigorous transparency protocol:

* Detailed Itineraries: The applicant must provide full details of all flight bookings, airlines, and accommodation in Saudi Arabia.

* Property Disclosure: As a safeguard, the applicant is required to furnish comprehensive details of all properties owned by him to the local police station and the Court.

* Binding Undertaking: A formal undertaking must be submitted, committing to the non-misuse of this liberty and ensuring a timely return.

Looking Forward

This judgment serves as a reminder that the status of being a "convict" during an appeal does not entirely strip an individual of their right to movement, provided the Court is satisfied with the security measures in place. This case sets a practical precedent for similarly situated litigants, affirming that the judiciary is willing to facilitate essential personal obligations so long as the appellant remains fully accountable to the Court’s jurisdiction.