Permission to travel abroad – In normal circumstances, permission can be granted to the petitioner to travel abroad being his fundamental right to travel abroad, during pendency criminal trial

Mr. Ajay Tewari, J. (Oral) - This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing of the impugned order dated 2.1.2019 whereby an application for permission to go abroad i.e. Bangkok (Thailand) from 25.1.2019 to 28.1.2019 (four days) and Turkey from 8.2.2019 to 9.2.2019 ( for two days) to attend the wedding ceremonies of his childhood friends has been dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the present petitioner had been released on bail vide order dated 29.9.2018 in a complaint case filed by the Directorate of Enforcement for commission of offence u/s 3 punishable under section 4 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 by the Court and in response thereof the requisite bonds had been furnished by the petitioner. He has further stated that marriage of his childhood friends was to be solemnized in Bangkok (Thailand) and Turkey and hence the petition for permission to go abroad had been filed in view of the condition imposed in the order for bail application of the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent has argued that in case the petitioner is granted permission to go abroad, there was likelihood of his absconding and therefore the petitioner be not granted permission to go abroad and hence the prayer for dismissal of the petition was made.

4. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner was that the petitioner was well settled having his financial status in the shape of liquid assets and the immovable properties in India and the marriage of the childhood friends of the petitioner was being solemnized in Bangkok (Thailand) and Turkey for which he intended to visit abroad for attending the marriage functions and that the petitioner was prepared to abide by the conditions to be imposed by the court for grant of the permission to go abroad. In support of the argument, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of this Court passed in the matter of Paramjit Kaur vs. State of Punjab CRM-M- 41608 of 2018 decided on 28.9.2019. Counsel for the petitioner has stated that he has placed on record copy of invitation card (Annexure P-8 and Annexure P-9), copy of income tax return filed by him as Proprietor of M/s Shine Impex, 181, Industrial Area-A, 2nd Floor, Dua Complex, Ludhiana for the assessment year 2018-19 (Annexure P-2) and the balance sheet as on 31st March 2018 (Annexure P-3).

5. The law governing the question of grant of permission to the petitioner for travelling abroad during the pendency of the trial has been elaborately discussed by this Court in authority of Paramjit Kaur vs. State of Punjab’s case (supra) in which reliance was placed on Srichand P. Hinduja Versus State through CBI, New Delhi 2002(3) RCR (Criminal) 186 (SC), Arun Kapoor vs. State of Haryana 2004(4) RCR (Criminal) 594 (P&H), Brij Bhushan Singal vs. Central Bureau of Investigation 1994(3) RCR (Crl.) 498 (P&H), Anjal Kumar @ Angel Kumar vs. State of Punjab [2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 233] : 2010(1) RCR (Criminal) 201 and Naginder Singh Rana vs. State of Punjab 2004(3) RCR (Criminal) 912 and on the basis of the said authoritative pronouncements of the Hon’ble Apex Court and this Court, it can be safely concluded that in normal circumstances, permission can be granted to the petitioner to travel abroad being his fundamental right to travel abroad, but the conditions are to be imposed for regulating and securing his presence during the trial.

6. Keeping in view the said ratio of the aforesaid authority of Paramjit Kaur vs. State of Punjab’s case (supra), which is applicable to the facts of the present case, in which also the permission has been sought by the petitioner to travel abroad for a short duration for attending the marriage ceremony of his childhood friends and the supporting documents have also been placed on record, I grant permission to petitioner Utkarsh Pahwa to travel abroad for attending the marriage ceremony of his childhood friends Jay at Bangkok during the perio