IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
Anoop Kumar Dhand, J.
Ashutosh Bajoria – Appellant
Versus
Rajesh Kumar Sharma – Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 12/2023
Decided On : 06-01-2023
Travel Permission - Criminal Procedure - Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (Sections 3, 4) - The court discussed the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and the right to travel abroad under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The court balanced the petitioner's right to travel with the prosecution's right to prevent evasion of trial, imposing conditions to ensure the petitioner's return and appearance before the court.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was accused under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. After seeking permission to travel to Singapore and Dubai for business meetings, the Trial Court rejected the application. The petitioner approached the court seeking permission to travel abroad.
Finding of the Court:
The court balanced the petitioner's right to travel with the prosecution's right to prevent evasion of trial, imposing conditions to ensure the petitioner's return and appearance before the court.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner should be granted permission to travel abroad for business meetings despite facing criminal charges.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the right to travel abroad is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, but it must be balanced with the need to prevent evasion of trial. The court imposed conditions to ensure the petitioner's return and appearance before the court.
Final Decision: The court quashed the impugned order and granted the petitioner permission to travel to Singapore and Dubai, subject to specific conditions to ensure his return and appearance before the court.
ORDER
1. By way of present petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ’Cr.P.C.’), the petitioner has approached this court with the following prayer :-
"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that, in view of the above mentioned facts and circumstances and in the interest of justice, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to accept and allow the present petition and quash and set aside the order dated 22.12.2022 and consequently permit Petitioner may be given permission to travel Singapore for ten days from 04.01.2023 upto 14.01.2023 and Dubai from 15.01.2023 upto 19.01.2023 on any condition that may be imposed by this Hon’ble Court. Any other appropriate orders as the Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice."
2. Facts in brief of the case are that Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement filed criminal complaint No. 3/2021 against the petitioner and other co-accused for the offence under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (for short ’the Act of 2002’) before the Special Court (PMLA, 2002) Special Judge (CBI Cases) No. 3, Jaipur Metropolitan-I (for short ’the Trial Court’) wherein cognizance was taken against the petitioner and co-accused for the above offences vide order dated 12.07.2021 and arrest warrants were issued against them. The arrest warrants were received back unserved with the report of Head Constable that out of fear of arrest, the petitioner has absconded. After receipt of the above report, the Trial Court issued standing arrest warrants against the petitioner and notice under Sections 82, 83 Cr.P.C. were also issued for appearance of the petitioner vide order dated 08.09.2021. Thereafter the petitioner submitted an application under Section 70(2) read with Section 71 Cr.P.C. for converting the arrest warrants into bailable warrant. However, the said application was rejected by the Trial Court vide order dated 15.02.2022.
3. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 15.02.2022, the petitioner submitted S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 5350/2022 before this court and on 17.06.2022 the coordinate bench of this court passed the following order :-
"Learned counsel for petitioners submits that the trial court vide order dated 12.07.2021 took cognizance for the offences under Section 3 read with Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and issued arrest warrant against petitioners. He further submits that the trial court has not given any reasons and circumstances for issuance of arrest warrant whereas petitioners are not absconding rather ready to appear before the trial court and submit their bail bonds.
Petitioners moved an application under Section 70(2) of Cr.P.C. to convert non-bailable warrant into bailable warrants but vide order dated 15.02.2022 same has also been dismissed.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Inder Mohan Goswami & Anr. vs. State of Uttaranchal & Ors. Reported in [(2007) 12 SCC 1] has opined that the non-bailable warrant to summon the accused persons should not be issued without proper scrutiny of facts and complete application of mind.
Issue notice to respondents of petitions as well as stay applications.
In the meanwhile, order dated 12.07.2021 to the extent of issuing arrest warrants against petitioners shall remain stayed and petitioners shall not be arrested. However, petitioners are at liberty to appear before the trial court and submit their bail bonds."
4. In pursuance of the above order dated 17.06.2022 the petitioner appeared before the Trial Court and furnished bail and surety bonds on 23.06.2022. His bail bonds were attested and the petitioner was released on bail subject to the condition that he will not leave India without prior permission of the court.
5. The petitioner submitted an application before the Trial Court and sought permission to travel to Singapore and Dubai to attend business meetings with effect from 01.01.2023 to
Expression “personal liberty” under Article 21 of Constitution of India has a wider amplitude which includes right to go abroad. A person cannot be deprived to this right except in accordance with pr....
The right to travel abroad is a fundamental aspect of personal liberty, protected by Article 21, and should only be restricted by lawful and just procedures.
The presumption of innocence guarantees an accused the right to travel abroad, contingent on judicial and procedural safeguards.
The court reinforced that bail conditions for foreign nationals accused of serious crimes must prioritize the integrity of the judicial process and the risk of flight.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.