The right to travel abroad is a fundamental liberty, and courts must balance this right with the necessity of the accused’s presence in trial proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J.

CRM-28939-2025 Allowed as prayed for.

MAIN CASE

1. The present petition has been preferred under Section 528 of BNSS , 2023 for quashing of order dated 05.06.2025 (Annexure P-52) passed by learned Sessions Judge, Hisar in case stemming from FIR No.72 dated 27.02.2023 registered under Sections 420 , 467, 468, 471, 193 and 199 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 25 of Arms Act, 1959 at Police Station Civil Lines, Hisar, District Hisar (Annexure P-39), whereby, the application filed by the petitioner, seeking release of his passport till 05.01.2026 has been partly allowed till 12.08.2025.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the FIR (supra). He further contends that the petitioner is reputed sportsman and earlier, he has participated in various shooting competitions at the national and international level. Further, the petitioner has received invitation to participate in the international shooting camps in Slovenia (Europe) and USA, which is concluding on 31.12.2025 as discernible from Annexure P-50. Learned counsel submits that the said invitation was duly placed before the learned trial Court and the veracity of the invitation was duly verified by the respondents, when the application for release of his passport and permission to go abroad was filed before the trial Court. Moreover, it was also verified that the petitioner is member of various shooting associations, however, the learned trial Court has granted the permission to the petitioner to go abroad only till 12.08.2025, on the ground that the next date of hearing is 12.08.2025, when the case is listed for framing of charges. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that earlier also, the petitioner has availed permission to travel abroad and joined the trial Court proceedings within the stipulated period. Reliance in this regard is placed on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mrs. Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India and another (1978) 1 SCC 248

3. Notice of motion.

4. Mr. Gagandeep Singh Chhina, Sr. DAG, Haryana puts in appearance and accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State. He could not controvert the fact that the petitioner is an eminent sportsman and he is invited to participate in a shooting camp, which is scheduled to be completed on 31.12.2025, however, he opposes the prayer made by the petitioner on the ground that his presence is essential for framing of charges.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record, it transpires that admittedly, the petitioner has participated in various national and international shooting camps and he has been invited to participate in one such event organised in Slovenia (Europe) and USA and the camp is scheduled to be completed on 31.12.2025. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.V. Muzumdar v. Gujarat State Fertilizer Co. Ltd. 2005(2) RCR (Criminal) 860 and M/s. Bhaskar Ind. Ltd. v. M/s. Bhiwani Denim & Apparels Ltd. 2001(4) RCR (Criminal) 137 as well as this Court in CRM-M-25963-2023 titled as Suresh Kumar and another Vs. The State of Haryana and another 2023 (2) Law Herald 1498 has already laid down the ratio of law that the presence of accused on each and every date is not necessary and even the charges can be framed in his absence.

6. This Court is of the considered opinion that a delicate balance must be struck between the rights of the accused and those of the victim. While accountability and fairness are integral facets of justice, the idea of just justice can only be realised throu