Back
2019 Supreme(P&H) 213
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
DAYA CHAUDHARY, J.
Ryan Augustine Pinto - Appellant
Versus
Central Bureau of Investigation - Respondent
CRM-M No.55170 of 2018
Decided On : 22-02-2019
For the Appellant :R.S. Cheema, Sr. Advocate with Arshdeep S. Cheema, Advocates.
For the Respondents:Sumeet Goel, Advocate.
For the Complainant :Anupam Singla and Sushil K. Tekriwal, Advocate.
The court balanced the personal liberty of the accused with the interest of justice and the need to ensure the accused's availability for investigation and trial when modifying the bail conditions regarding travel abroad.
Headnote:
Bail Conditions - Travel Abroad - Section 437, 438 of Cr.P.C - The court modified the condition of seeking prior permission to travel abroad, allowing the petitioner to travel without prior permission but with an undertaking to make himself available during investigation or trial and to inform the Investigating Agency/Court in advance of his visit abroad. The court also directed the petitioner to furnish a surety bond of Rs. one crore.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought modification of bail conditions to remove the restriction on traveling abroad without prior permission. The petitioner argued that the condition affected his personal liberty and was unnecessary as no incriminating material had been collected against him during the investigation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that while the right to travel abroad is encompassed in the right to personal liberty, the court has the power to impose conditions, including restrictions on movement, while granting bail in non-bailable offences. The court balanced the personal liberty of the accused with the interest of justice and the need to ensure the accused's availability for investigation and trial.
Issues: The main issue was the modification of bail conditions to remove the restriction on traveling abroad without prior permission.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the right to travel abroad is encompassed in the right to personal liberty, but the court has the power to impose conditions, including restrictions on movement, while granting bail in non-bailable offences. The court must balance the personal liberty of the accused with the interest of justice and the need to ensure the accused's availability for investigation and trial.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petitioner to travel abroad without prior permission but with an undertaking to make himself available during investigation or trial and to inform the Investigating Agency/Court in advance of his visit abroad. The court also directed the petitioner to furnish a surety bond of Rs. one crore.
DAYA CHAUDHARY, J.
1. Petitioner earlier filed CRM No.M-35002 of 2017 in case FIR No.250 dated 08.09.2017 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302 IPC, Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2005 and Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 (which was added later on) at Police Station Bhondsi. The investigation of the said case was transferred to Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The aforesaid FIR was re-registered bearing No.RC 8(S)/2017/SCIII/New Delhi on 22.09.2017. Vide order dated 07.10.2017, the petitioner was released on interim bail on his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Investigating Agency subject to terms and conditions as envisaged under Section 438(2)(i) to (iv) Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the case came up for hearing on 21.11.2017 and the following order was passed :-
"As admitted by learned counsel representing CBI, petitioners have not ever been called for joining the investigation and CBI has arrested a student of the school as main accused for murder of Pradyumn and is concentrating on his role in committing the crime."
2. Thereafter, the interim order of bail was made absolute by this Court vide order dated 21.11.2017 with the following conditions :-
"i. That the petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation by the investigating agency as and when required;
ii. That the petitioners shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the accusation against them so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to investigating agency.
iii. That the petitioners shall not leave India without the prior permission of the Court.
iv. That the petitioners will seek regular bail on the presentation of challan in Court."
3. The complainant i.e father of the deceased filed an appeal before the Hon'ble Apex Court to challenge order dated 21.11.2017 passed by this Court but the same was dismissed vide order dated 11.12.2017 and the order passed by this Court on 21.11.2017 was upheld. Thereafter, the petitioner was issued a notice by the respondent to appear before the Investigating Agency. Petitioner appeared as and when required. He filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C before this Court seeking permission to travel abroad i.e U.S.A from 19.01.2018 to 09.02.2018. Having no objection from CBI, the petitioner was allowed to travel abroad on 18.01.2018 subject to following conditions :-
"This court feels that the necessary security in the aforesaid terms be furnished to the investigating officer or any official deem fit by the investigating agency. On doing so, petitioner shall be permitted to travel abroad from 19.01.2018 to 09.02.2018. On returning, he shall report to the investigating officer and join investigation as and when called for. Needless to observe that investigating officer shall be at liberty to release the surety thereafter subject to imposition of such terms and conditions as envisaged by the bail order."
4. The petitioner, in compliance of order dated 18.01.2018, deposited the surety. Thereafter, the final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C was filed before this Court. The petitioner sought permission to visit different countries during the period 2015 to 2017. Thereafter, he approached this Court by way of filing CRM No.42602 of 2018 in CRM-M No.35002 of 2017 for modification of order granting bail to the extent of removing the restriction imposed on his travel. Said petition was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to avail other legal remedies including filing of separate petition. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the present petition for modification of terms and conditions incorporated in the order granting bail and especially the condition of not leaving country without prior permission of the Court.
5. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the impositio
