IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Even if a person is an accused and is facing trial, he should not ordinarily be denied special moments of small pleasures in life.
(2) Personal liberty of a person has to be balanced with that of any condition imposed on him by a Court of law for the purpose of securing his attendance and attending proceedings lest he is not available to face trial.

JUDGMENT

Swarana Kanta Sharma, J.—The instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed on behalf of petitioner seeking setting aside and modification of impugned order dated 20.07.2023 passed by learned Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-11, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi and for grant permission to the petitioner to travel abroad i.e. Canada, Norway and London from 26.08.2023 to 19.09.2023 for admission process of petitioner’s son and for leisure and business travel.

2. Before this Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner has been granted permission to travel abroad at least 18 times in past by this Court as well as by the learned Trial Court and he has never misused the liberty so granted. It is also stated that the petitioner wants to go abroad for the purpose of admission of his son in the Schulich School of Business, York University as also for the purpose of business and vacation. It is stated that admission of the petitioner’s son is to start from 05.09.2023.

3. The learned Trial Court was pleased to dismiss the application of the petitioner on the ground that he had failed to produce any document to show that his presence is required for admission of his son in York University and that he had also failed to provide any itinerary with regard to his staying in Canada, Norway and London. The learned Trial Court had also observed that in the past, the petitioner’s application to travel abroad in connection with admission of his son in the college was also dismissed as he had filed forged documents in support of his contention. It was also observed that his passport was released for the purpose of renewal, however, the same was not surrendered in time in the Court after renewal. In the reply filed on behalf of respondent, it has been stated that learned Trial Court has rightly dismissed the application on these grounds.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, on the other hand, stated that the passport was directed to be released for renewal to the present petitioner since he had to procure Canadian Visa and Schengen Visa and since the renewal and procuring of the visas had taken substantial time, therefore it was held that he had not deposited the passport after renewal. It is stated that after obtaining the visas, he had surrendered the passport in the Court and that during the period for grant of Visa, his passport was lying with the concerned authorities. It is also stated as far as providing details of itinerary is concerned, the petitioner had sought time to file the itinerary before the learned Trial Court. As far as the ground that petitioner had forged travel documents on a prior occasion is concerned, it is stated that this Court had permitted him to travel abroad thereafter. It is also stated that he has never violated any condition or direction of the Court when he was granted permission to travel abroad. It is now stated that he has travelled abroad on several occasions in past with the leave of the Court and therefore, he be allowed to travel to different countries for the purpose of business, vacation as well as admission purpose of his son.

5. This Court has heard arguments advanced on behalf of both sides and perused the material on record.

6. In the present case, it is not disputed that the present petitioner has travelled abroad on about 20 occasions in the past with permission of this Court and the learned Trial Court. It is also admitted that the petitioner has never misused the liberty of going abroad and had returned to India in time without violating any condition imposed on him for the purpose of going abroad. It is also noted that the son of the petitioner has to be admitted in York University to pursue Master Marketing (MMKG) Program. The respondent has not disputed the genuineness of the documents placed on record regarding admission of the son of the petitioner in the York University of Canada and that he has depo