The central legal point established in the judgment is the presumption of innocence until proven guilty and the fundamental right to travel abroad for personal reasons, despite facing a criminal charge.

V.K.Bali, J.

1. Prayer made in this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is to quash order dated 25.5.2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, and in consequence of setting aside the order aforesaid, to permit the petitioner to go to USA for a month.

2. Permission to go abroad has been declined to the petitioner by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, by observing that the petitioner is facing a corruption charge. It has been observed that even though the petitioner is on bail in the case aforesaid, but an application for cancellation of bail has been filed by the State, which is pending in the High Court. The Additional Sessions Judge further observed that if allowed to go abroad, the petitioner is not likely to return to India. It has, inter alia, been pleaded that from the perusal of the FIR, it would be clear that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and during the investigation, he has produced before the Investigating Officer as well as the Court all relevant documents and his assets, which are mentioned in the FIR and he has given the proof of the same. He is having agricultural land, from which he is having huge income and the said land was purchased with permission of the department. He is having three daughters and one son. Two daughters are married abroad and the elder daughter, namely, Shellu Rana is residing in USA and recently she has been blessed with a son. Therefore, the petitioner as well as his wife want to go abroad to see her and newly born baby and regarding that sponsorship has been sent to the petitioner and his family members by his son-in-law (Annexure P-1). After the marriage of the girl, the petitioner along with his family went abroad to attend the reception in USA with the permission of the department. After visiting USA, the petitioner returned back and rejoined his duty and now when his daughter has been blessed with a son, it is the custom in the Rajput community to go and see the child and for that purpose, the whole family members want to go abroad and that can only be done during vacation of the two children, namely, Kajal Rana and Akashdeep Singh Rana. It is then pleaded that when the petitioner was admitted to bail, there was no condition stipulated in the order that he cannot go abroad.

3. The impugned order has been assailed on the ground that the same has been passed without any application of mind because the Special Judge, while granting bail, has taken into consideration the entire material and has come to the conclusion that the case of the petitioner is based on the documentary evidence but now learned Additional Sessions Judge has totally ignored these facts, while dismissing application for permission to go abroad. The petitioner is having huge property in India and for the same, documents had since already been produced before the Court. Furthermore, he is a Government employee. He is also having G.P.F. Account, which shows that a sum of Rs. 9.73,082/- is already lying in his account and apart from this, he is having sufficient landed agricultural property but these aspects have not been considered while dismissing the application. Daughter of the petitioner has been blessed with a son in USA and it is the custom in Rajput Community to go and see the daughter and her newly born baby but this aspect has not beep considered by learned Additional Sessions Judge. The petitioner was only asking permission to go abroad for 30 days and so far challan has not been filed in the court and the petitioner had undertaken to come back within stipulated time. The petitioner not only has huge property in the country but his other children are also residing in India and, therefore, there was no question for him not to return to India, contends learned counsel representing the petitioner.

4. The respondent has filed reply wherein, insofar as factual position is concerned, the same has not been denied. It has howev