Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF
Siddharth, J.
Arpan Saxena – Appellant
Vs.
State of
CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 9565 of 2020
Decided On :
(A) Constitution of India - Article 21 - Right to travel abroad - The recall application was filed by the opposite party seeking to restore the condition of passport surrender in the anticipatory bail order, arguing that the applicant intended to flee the country and that divorce proceedings would be prejudiced. The court found that the applicant had complied with previous orders and that the right to travel is protected under Article 21, which cannot be deprived without due process. The court noted that the opposite party failed to demonstrate any law prohibiting the applicant's travel. (Paras 3, 9, 10, 12)
(B) Modification of Bail Conditions - The court held that the modification of bail conditions was justified as the applicant had complied with the requirements and the previous counsel for the opposite party had not appeared during the modification hearing. The court emphasized the importance of due process in modifying bail conditions. (Paras 5, 6, 8)
Facts of the case:
The recall applicant, the wife of the applicant, alleged that her husband intended to leave the country and that this would affect ongoing divorce proceedings. The applicant argued that he had complied with court orders regarding his passport.
Findings of Court:
The court found no grounds for recalling the order allowing the applicant to travel abroad, emphasizing the right to travel as part of personal liberty under Article 21.
Issues: The main issues were whether the applicant's right to travel could be restricted and whether the recall application had merit.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the right to travel abroad is encompassed within the right to personal liberty under Article 21, and no law was cited to restrict this right.
Result: Recall application rejected.
JUDGMENT :
Siddharth, J.
Order on Criminal Misc. Recall Application No.5 of 2025
1. Heard Ms. Ankita Priyadarshini, recall applicant-opposite party no.2, in person; Sri Ramesh Upadhyaya, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Rajan Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the applicant; learned AGA for opposite party no.1 and perused the material on record.
2. The above noted application has been filed by opposite party no.2 - recall applicant, praying that order dated 7.3.2025 of modification of condition no.3 of the order dated 17.2.2021 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No.9565 of 2020 directing release of the applicant's passport passed without hearing recall applicant-opposite party no.2, may be recalled. The passport of the applicant may not be released and the condition no.3 in the anticipatory bail order dated 17.2.2021 of applicant passed by this Court may be restored.
3. The recall applicant-opposite party no.2, appearing in person, has submitted that the applicant, Arpan Saxena, is her husband. The order dated 7.3.2025 passed by this Court was passed without giving opportunity of hearing to her. The applicant did not complied the condition of surrender of passport as per orders of this Court dated 18.12.2020 and 17.2.2021 for long time. The applicant wants to flee away from the country by selling her matrimonial home and her jewelries. He wants to settle abroad alongwith his parents. She has further submitted that in case the applicant is allowed to leave the country, divorce proceedings pending between them before the court at Delhi shall be prejudiced. She has also alleged that number of criminal cases are pending against the applicant. Therefore he does not deserves to be returned his passport. Hence it has been prayed that order dated 7.3.2025 passed by this Court should be recalled.
4. A counter affidavit has been filed by the applicant stating that this Court has passed the order dated 7.3.2025 relying upon the judgement passed in the case of Mirza Shafiq Hussain Shafaq and others Vs. State of U.P. (MANU/UP/1696/2022) and order passed by Division Bench in Contempt Application filed by opposite party no.2. It has further been stated in the counter affidavit that applicant appeared before the police station on 02.01.2021 for surrendering his passport, but it was not accepted on the ground that passport had already expired. The applicant has been granted permission by Metropolitan Magistrate-1, Dwarka Court, New Delhi on 21.4.2023 granting no objection to his traveling abroad if the passport of the applicant is renewed. The aforesaid order was challenged by opposite party no.2 by filing her revision before the Sessions Court, Dwarka, Delhi, but it was dismissed on 22.4.2024. He has submitted that the order of the contempt court dated 18.3.2024 was not challenged by the opposite party no.2 before any forum. The applicant has not violated any order of this Court as alleged falsely by the opposite party no.2.
5. After hearing rival submissions, a look at the order dated 7.3.2025 passed by this Court is required and it is quoted hereinbelow:-
"List has been revised.
Heard Sri Ramesh Upadhyay, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Rajan Upadhyay, learned counsel for applicant and learned AGA for State.
Order on Delay Condonation Application No.3/2021 Cause shown for delay in filing of application is sufficient.
Delay in filing of appeal is condoned.
Delay condonation application is allowed.
Order on Modification Application No.2/2024
The above noted application has been filed praying for modification of the order dated 17.02.2021 passed by this Court on anticipatory bail application of the applicant by deleting the condition no.3 in the aforesaid order.
Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has deposited the passport in compliance of the earlier order passed by this Court, but it has already expired and being reputed employee of Maruti Suzuki the applicant is required to travel
The right to travel abroad is protected under Article 21 of the Constitution, and cannot be restricted without due process of law.
The right to travel abroad is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, which cannot be restricted without due process.
The right to travel abroad is a fundamental aspect of personal liberty, protected by Article 21, and should only be restricted by lawful and just procedures.
Pre-arrest bail conditions permit travel on certain terms; Courts maintain authority to adjudicate future travel requests.
The right to travel abroad is a fundamental right under Article 21, subject to reasonable restrictions, and cannot be denied arbitrarily to an accused not convicted of any offense.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
