SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA J.

1. This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that this Court should issue directions to the respondent not to prevent petitioner from going abroad and also for directing the respondent no. 2 to release the passport of the petitioner and not to obstruct/restrain the petitioner from exercising his fundamental rights to move freely and to go abroad.

2. The petitioner is involved in several cases under FERA and is on bail in these cases. While granting bail to the petitioner under FERA, conditions were put and one of the condition was that the petitioner shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court and if he even desires to go out of Delhi he shall give prior intimation to the Enforcement Department about his programme and intimate the addresses and places where he could be contacted. In one of the cases where the bail was granted by Honble Supreme Court, the Honble Supreme Court also put a condition that the petitioner would leave the country only with the permission of the Court and on such condition as the Court may impose in that event.

3. Since it was a condition of bail granted to the petitioner that he could not leave the country without permission of the Court, the petitioner had been applying to the Court from time to time for going abroad. Sometimes permission was granted to the petitioner and sometimes declined depending upon the merits of the reasons put forward by the petitioner. The petitioners last application was disposed of by ACMM vide order dated 13th December, 2004 declining the permission to travel abroad. This application was a joint application made by the petitioner in all pending complaint cases of FERA. When the application was entertained by the ACMM, CBI intervened into the matter and also made its submissions opposing the application of the petitioner for going abroad. The order of the ACMM dated 13th December, 2004 gives details of the arguments addressed by CBI and one of the reasons for rejecting the application of the petitioner was the apprehension expressed by Enforcement Department and CBI that the accused may flee from the country and may not return back to face the trial in enforcement cases and investigation in the aspect of conspiracy in Rajiv Gandhi Assassination case. Learned ACMM observed that the allegations against the petitioner were serious in nature and possibility that he may not return back to India cannot be ruled out. The learned ACMM also observed that the petitioner failed to adduce any material to authenticate or substantiate need to go abroad.

4. The present petition of the petitioner is opposed by the respondents and the learned Additional Solicitor General informed the Court that investigation against the petitioner in Rajiv Gandhi Assassination case was going on and this should be sufficient ground to deny the petitioner permission to visit abroad. The other ground for opposing the petition is that the petitioner has come to this Court against the order of learned ACMM by way of Writ Petition. Writ Petition is not maintainable against the judicial order of ACMM. The petitioner has other remedy available to him.

5. Right to go abroad has been held as a part of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India in case of Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India 1975 (1) SCC 248 wherein Supreme Court observed that personal liberty makes worth of human/person and travel makes liberty worthwhile. However, the personal liberty and the fundamental rights granted to the citizens by Constitution are not absolute and reasonable restrictions, as envisaged under Constitution of India as well as warranted by the Security of State and circumstances, can be imposed by the State. In the present case the petitioners right to travel abroad was curtailed as a condition for bail. The petitioner was conditionally released on bail in the complaint cases of FERA. The trial of acc

Click Here to Read the rest of this document