IMPORTANT POINT
The right to travel abroad is a part of the personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and any condition imposed on this right must be reasoned and not infringe on fundamental rights.

JUDGMENT

Navin Chawla, J. (Oral)

1. These petitions have been filed challenging the orders dated 19.01.2021 (hereinafter collectively referred to as the `Impugned Orders') passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Special Acts), Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the `Trial Court') in Complaint Case No. 288642/2016, Complaint Case No. 522997/2016, and Complaint Case no. 522998/2016, all titled M/s.VLS Finance Limited v. Sunair Hotels Ltd.

2. By the Impugned Orders, while granting relief to the petitioner(s) on an application seeking permission for renewal of the passport for a period of five years as per the then prevailing rules, it has been stipulated by the learned Trial Court that the petitioner(s) shall seek prior permission of the learned Trial Court before leaving the country.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner(s) submits that the abovementioned Complaint Cases have been filed for the offences that are bailable in nature. He further submits that the Complaint Cases were filed sometime around in the year 2001/2013, but their trial is likely to take a long period of time. He submits that the petitioner(s), for their business and other purposes, have to travel regularly to foreign countries, and the impugned condition imposed, therefore, acts as a hindrance to their personal liberty and the right to carry on trade or business freely.

4. He submits that even earlier, by an order dated 12.04.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-02, New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi in Criminal Revision No. 185/2012 and 186/2012, a similar condition imposed vide order dated 04.03.2010 passed by this Court in Crl. M.C. No.911/2003, was modified, and while setting aside the order dated 19.09.2012 of the learned Trial Court, it was directed that the applicant will intimate the learned Trial Court about the details of his visit subject to placing on record one time FDR of Rs. 5,00,000/- instead of filing FDR on each visit.

5. He submits that thereafter, the petitioner- Mr.Vipul Gupta has visited foreign countries more than 30 times, while the petitioner- Mr.Kaveen Gupta has travelled to foreign countries more than 26 times. He submits that, in fact, after the passing of the Impugned Order, the petitioner(s) have travelled abroad more than 5 times, and there are no complaints of the petitioners having, in any manner, abused the permission granted by the learned Trial Court.

6. He submits that in terms of the first order granting permission to the petitioner(s) to travel abroad, both the petitioners have deposited Rs.10 lacs each as fixed deposit receipts with the learned Trial Court, which remains deposited with the learned Trial Court as a security of the petitioner(s) coming back to this Country.

7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent no.2/complainant submits that the present petitions are barred by delay and laches. He submits that though the Impugned Order was passed on 19.01.2021, the present petitions have been filed only on or around 07.01.2022, that is, with a delay of almost a year. Placing reliance on the judgments of this Court dated 24.08.2011 in Crl. M.C.1656/2011, titled Rajesh Chetwal v. State, and of the Orrisa High Court in Bata @ Batakrushna Behera & Ors. v. Anama Behera, 1989 SCC OnLine Ori 325, he submits that, therefore, the present petitions are liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.

8. He further submits that the petitioners have also taken benefit of the Impugned Orders inasmuch as they have sought for and have been granted permission to travel abroad in terms of the orders impugned herein. He submits that the petitioner(s), therefore, cannot maintain the present petitions challenging the said orders, of whose benefit they have already availed.

9. He further submits that apart from the present Complaint Cases, there are other criminal cases which are also pending against the petitioner(s). He submits that t