The court emphasized the need for serious examination of the grounds for travel permission and found the denial of permission to be unjustified, allowing the petitioner to leave the state subject to specified conditions for a specific period.

JUDGMENT

R.K. Pattanaik, J. - Instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is at the behest of the petitioner assailing the impugned order dated 13th April, 2022 passed in C.T. Case No.4053 of 2020 by the learned J.M.F.C., Bhubaneswar whereby an application filed by him seeking permission to leave the jurisdiction of the Court and to travel to Pune and Delhi was declined and rejected.

2. An FIR was lodged by the informant, namely, DGM (Ethics) of Tata Motor Ltd. before the CID(CB), Bhubaneswar, consequent upon which, CID Cyber Crime P.S. Case No.26 of 2020 was registered under Section 420 IPC and other allied offences was registered which corresponds to C.T. Case No.4053 of 2001. The chargesheet against the petitioner and others was finally submitted in the year 2022 under the alleged offences. The petitioner, who was in judicial custody, was released on bail by this Court's order dated 16th February, 2022 in BLAPL No.6494 of 2021. Thereafter, the petitioner moved the application before the learned State which was however denied vide Annexure-5. Aggrieved by such rejection, the petitioner has approached this Court challenging the correctness and judicial prosperity of the impugned order under Annexure-5.

3. Heard Mr. Sahoo, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the State-opposite party.

4. It is contended by Mr. Sahoo, learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was required to travel to Pune which is his native place to look after the landed property and to Delhi in order to collect certain documents necessary to defend a proceeding before the Adjudicating Authority under PMLA and for the said purpose, permission was sought for but the same was declined by the learned court below in a casual manner and also for the reason that the case is pending for framing of charge. It is submitted that such a move of the petitioner was opposed by the State on the ground that it was with malafide intention and to delay the criminal proceeding that the permission is applied for and as such there is no need for him to travel to Pune and Delhi and at a stage when charge is not yet framed.

5. The petitioner was released on bail with one of the conditions that he shall not leave the State without prior permission of the court below. A copy of the said bail order in BLAPL No.6494 dated 16th February, 2022 is at Annexure-2 series. The petitioner moved the learned court below by indicating in the application the reason and purpose for him to travel to Pune and Delhi and only for a period from 14th April, 2022 to 28th April, 2022 to look after his landed property and also in order to collect certain documents and also to engage an Advocate to appear before the Adjudicating Authority under PMLA at New Delhi. An affidavit dated 8th September, 2022 was filed by the petitioner disclosing the relevant facts for consideration of the Court and the purpose for him to travel outside the State.

6. The petitioner was released on bail with one of the conditions to leave the jurisdiction of the State after obtaining the court's permission. The aforesaid condition does mean that the petitioner can be allowed to leave the State where there is need or purpose which he may do so however with the orders of the court. The reason stated in the impugned order is that there was no need for the petitioner to travel to collect documents so as enable him to file it before the Adjudicating Authority, New Delhi without any order being produced and that too when, the show cause was already filed by him. Another reason assigned while denying permission is that the case is lingering at the stage of framing of charge and on an earlier occasion, a similar relief was considered and rejected by the court's order on 8th April, 2022.

7. In the considered view of the Court since such travel beyond the jurisdiction of the State is not prohibited but subject to permission, the ground upon which such request was received from the petitioner was requi