Back
2022 Supreme(Jhk) 484
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.
Bisu Benjamin Aind @ Bishu Benjamin Ain @ Bishu Aind, son of late Thibhu Aind – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand - Opp. Party
Cr.M.P. No. 1917 of 2022
Decided On : 22-06-2022
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Jorong Jedan Sanga, Advocate, Mr. Anand Prakash, Advocate
For the Opposite Party :Mrs. Vandana Bharti, Advocate
The judgment established the fundamental right to travel abroad under Article 21 and the need for specific conditions to prevent evasion of prosecution.
Headnote:
Right to Travel - Criminal Law - Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act, Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act - Article 21, Article 19 - AIR 1967 SC 1836, (1978) 1 SCC 248
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a petition to set aside an order rejecting his request to travel to Italy for professional reasons. The petitioner had been granted anticipatory bail in connection with a case related to leading a mob against the amendment of Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act and Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act. The court considered the petitioner's invitation to participate in a religious event in Italy and his professional commitments.
Finding of the Court:
The court acknowledged the fundamental right to travel abroad and considered the petitioner's conduct and the need to ensure he does not evade prosecution. The court permitted the petitioner to travel to Italy for two and a half months, subject to specific conditions.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner should be permitted to travel to Italy despite facing serious allegations and ongoing legal proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the interpretation of Article 21 and Article 19, emphasizing the fundamental right to travel abroad and the need for compliance with specific conditions to prevent evasion of prosecution.
Final Decision: The petitioner was permitted to travel to Italy for two and a half months, subject to fulfilling specific conditions, including providing a bond, executing a surety bond, and complying with reporting requirements to the authorities.
JUDGMENT :
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he will remove the defect in course of day.
2. Let him do so.
3. Heard Mr. Jorong Jedan Sanga, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Vandana Bharti, learned counsel for the State.
4. The present petition has been filed for setting aside of order dated 15.06.2022 passed in Misc. Cr. Appeal No. 3581/2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, XXII, Ranchi in connection with Lalpur P.S. Case No. 170 of 2017, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 2932 of 2017 whereby petition filed by the petitioner for grant of permission to travel Italy for his professional career, has been rejected.
5. Mr. Jorong Jedan Sanga learned counsel for the petitioner submits that F.I.R. was lodged on 09.06.2017 on the allegation that the petitioner was leading a mob against amendment of Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act and Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act was opposed and some of the persons involved in the mob were negligently driving the bike. He further submits that the petitioner was allowed privilege of anticipatory bail by this Court thereafter the petitioner is regularly appearing in the court below. He further submits that the petitioner is a priest (Christian religious leader) got the invitation to participate the Jubilee of 50 years of Priesthood of Father Don Giovanni Mazzillo, Tortora (CS) Italia on 16.07.2022, who was also the professor of the petitioner in the University and the guide of the petitioner Doctoral thesis in Rome and there is also a priestly ordination of the petitioner fellow brother in Calabria on 02.07.2022. He further submits that all these documents were filed before the learned court below but the same was rejected. He further submits that Visa has been granted to the petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner has Air Ticket to go to Italy on 24.06.2022 and to return to India on 10.09.2022. He refers to para 18 of the petition and submits that the petitioner will give undertaking that in his absence if any witness is produced, the counsel for the petitioner will cross-examine and no adjournment will be taken. Referring para 21 of the petition he submits that undertaking is there that the petitioner will return to India by 10.09.2022. He submits that undertaking is also there in para 22 of the petition that if the petitioner fails to return back by 10.09.2022 the court may cancel his bail bond. He further submits that period indicated above, the petitioner may be allowed to travel to Italy.
6. Mrs. Vandana Bharti, learned counsel for the State submits that serious allegation is there and that is why the learned court below has rejected the prayer of the petitioner.
7. It is well settled law that right to travel abroad is fundamental right. This was decided by the Full Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Satwant Singh Sawhney V. D. Ramarathnam” reported in AIR 1967 SC 1836 in which it has been held that the expression of “personal liberty” in Article 21 takes in the right of locomotion and to travel abroad, but the right to move throughout the territories of India is not covered by it in as much as it is specially provided in Article 19. Under Article 21 no person can be deprived of his right to travel except according to procedure established by law. This aspect has again considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case “Mrs. Maneka Gandhi V. Union of India and another” reported in (1978) 1 SCC 248.
8. In the light of aforesaid judgments this Court is to decide whether the petitioner should be permitted to travel to Italy for two and half months or not.
9. The conduct of the petitioner and above all, the need to ensure that he does not pose a risk of evading the prosecution. The Visa has been granted. The petitioner has annexed copy of Air Ticket which shows that the petitioner has to go Italy on 24.06.2022 and will return to India on 10.09.2022.
10. In view of aforesaid facts the Court is of the considered view that the petitioner may be permitted to go
