IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J.
Harshvardhan Johari S/o. Shri Govind Johari - Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan, through P.P. - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 81 of 2025
Decided On : 09-01-2025
(A) Passports Act, 1967 - Right to travel abroad - The trial Court's refusal to extend the petitioner's foreign stay and direction to cancel his passport was challenged. The petitioner, engaged in jewellery business, faced criminal cases but had been granted anticipatory bail. The Court emphasized that the right to travel is a fundamental right and cannot be curtailed without due process. (Paras 5, 10, 12)
(B) Judicial Authority - The direction for passport cancellation must adhere to the provisions of the Act of 1967. The petitioner’s overstay was due to an accident, not intentional avoidance of court appearance. (Paras 11, 12)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought to extend his stay abroad for business purposes amidst pending criminal cases, citing an accident that hindered his return. (Paras 1-4)
Findings of Court:
The Court quashed the trial Court's order regarding passport cancellation, affirming the petitioner's right to travel. (Paras 13)
Issues: Whether the trial Court had the authority to cancel the petitioner’s passport and the implications of the petitioner’s accident on his court appearance. (Paras 5, 10)
Ratio Decidendi: The right to travel abroad is a fundamental human right, and any restrictions must follow legal procedures. The petitioner’s circumstances justified the extension of his stay. (Paras 10, 12)
Result: The petition was allowed, and the trial Court's order was quashed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner seeks foreign stay extension (Para 1) |
| 2. counsel argues for business travel (Para 2) |
| 3. compliance with trial court order (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. right to travel as fundamental (Para 10) |
| 5. law on passport cancellation (Para 11 , 12) |
| 6. petition allowed and order quashed (Para 13 , 14) |
ORDER :
1. This criminal misc. petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. challenging the order dated 13.12.2024 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.6, Jaipur Metro-I (hereinafter referred to as the 'trial Court') in Criminal Case No.184/2024 whereby learned trial Court has refused to extend the foreign stay of the petitioner upto 15.02.2025 and furthermore, has directed to issue letter to cancel the passport of the petitioner.
2. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is dealing in the business of manufacturing and selling of jewellery and for his business purpose, the petitioner frequently visits foreign countries to procure orders of jewellery. Learned Senior Counsel also submitted that due to some professional and personal rivalry, some criminal cases have been lodged against the petitioner.
3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the criminal proceeding arising out of the FIR No.144/2005 registered at Police Station Moti Doongari, Jaipur is pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.6, Jaipur Metro-I, another criminal proceeding arising out of the FIR No.171/2005 registered at Police Station Ashok Nagar, Jaipur is pending in the Court of Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate No.11, Jaipur Metropolitan-I, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as the 'Court of Judicial Magistrate No.11') and one more criminal proceeding arising out of the FIR No.199/2010 registered at Police Station Manak Chowk, Jaipur is pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.7, Jaipur Metropolitan-I, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as the 'Court of Judicial Magistrate No.7').
4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner contended that in all the pending criminal cases, the petitioner has been granted benefit of anticipatory bail and all these criminal cases are at the stage of summoning of other co-accused and, therefore, no effective proceeding is being done in these criminal cases. Learned Senior Counsel further contended that the main limb of the petitioner's business is in foreign countries and, therefore, the petitioner has to visit multiple trade fairs as well as foreign customers to procure jewellery orders from them. Learned Senior Counsel has also contended that vide order dated 07.09.2024 in all these criminal cases, the petitioner was permitted by learned Courts to travel abroad till 15.10.2024. The said order was further extended to allow the petitioner to stay abroad till 16.12.2024. During his foreign stay, on 24.11.2024, the petitioner met with an accident and suffered from a knee injury. Thereafter, the petitioner visited the hospital on 27.11.2024 and again on 06.12.2024, he was given medicines and advised to rest for about eight weeks on 10.12.2024. Copy of the medical prescription and related documents have been annexed with the petition as Annexure-6. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that in such backdrop, the petitioner moved applications seeking permission to stay outside India till 15.02.2025 in all the criminal cases pending against him. Learned Senior Counsel also submitted that in the criminal proceedings arising out of the FIR Nos.171/2005 and 199/2010 registered at Police Stations Ashok Nagar and Manak Chowk respectively, learned Courts of Judicial Magistrate No.7 and 11 allowed the applications filed on behalf of the petitioner and permitted the petitioner to stay outside India till 15.02.2025. The impugned orders passed by the Courts of Judicial Magistrate No.7 and 11 are annexed with the petition as Annexures-7 and 8 respectively. However, in the criminal
The right to travel abroad is a fundamental human right, and restrictions must comply with legal procedures, especially in cases of unforeseen circumstances.
The right to travel abroad is a fundamental human right, and restrictions must comply with due process of law.
The mere pendency of a criminal case does not automatically bar passport issuance; personal liberty must be considered.
The right to travel abroad is a fundamental right under Article 21, subject to reasonable restrictions, and cannot be denied arbitrarily to an accused not convicted of any offense.
A person facing criminal trial has a fundamental right to travel abroad which cannot be denied by imposing unreasonable restrictions, though appropriate conditions can be imposed to ensure trial proc....
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.