Back
2010 Supreme(MP) 1214
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
ANIL SHARMA, J.
AJAY s/o JAGDISH SHARMA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF M. P. – Respondent
M.Cr.C. No. 5454 of 2010
Decided On : 03-09-2010
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : R. K. Sharma , M. S. Yadav
For the Respondent: D. S. Chauhan,Madhukar Rao
The right to education cannot be exercised to defeat legal proceedings pending against an individual, especially when the individual is aware of the conditions of their bail.
Headnote:
Section 482 - Criminal Procedure Code - Bail Conditions and Right to Education - The court held that the right to education cannot be exercised to defeat legal proceedings pending against the petitioner. It also considered the conditions of the bail order and the petitioner's knowledge of these conditions when taking admission in an institution abroad.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed an application under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code to set aside the order rejecting his request to go to the USA for further study, as he was facing criminal charges in India and had been granted bail with the condition that he would not leave the country without court permission.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had taken admission in a US institution with full knowledge of the bail conditions and after unsuccessful attempts to quash the criminal proceedings against him. It held that the right to education cannot be used to evade legal proceedings.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner should be granted permission to go abroad for education despite facing pending criminal charges in India and being subject to bail conditions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the petitioner's knowledge of the bail conditions, the purpose of imposing such conditions, and the potential evasion of legal proceedings if permission to go abroad was granted.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitioner's application, ruling that it was not appropriate to grant permission for him to go abroad given the circumstances.
JUDGMENT :
1. Arguments heard.
2. Petitioner has filed this application under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code for setting aside the order dated 2-8-2010 passed in Criminal Case No. 11683/2010 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gwalior by which the application filed by the petitioner for allowing him to go to USA for further study in Hult International Business School, USA has been rejected. Against the aforesaid order a Criminal Revision No. 385/10 was preferred by the petitioner before the Eleventh Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Gwalior and the Sessions Judge vide judgment dated 12-8-2010 has confirmed the order dated 2-8-2010 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, hence, this application.
3. Criminal Case No. 11683/2010 is still pending against the petitioner Ajay Sharma for the offence punishable under sections 498-A and 506-B of Indian Penal Code in which he has been granted bail on the condition that he will not leave India without permission of the Court. Further the application filed by the petitioner for giving his passport and Visa on Supurdgi for going abroad has also been rejected. It is important to note that the petitioner was arrested in the above crime from Chennai Airport while he was about to leave India. Further the crime has been registered against the petitioner in the year 2009 and petition for quashing the FIR filed by the petitioner i.e. M.Cr.C. No. 7827/09 has already been dismissed by another Bench of this Court vide order dated 1-7-2010.
4. Petitioner has taken the admission in the aforesaid institution at USA knowing this fact very well that what conditions have been imposed upon him while granting the bail. He has been informed about his admission on 3rd June, 2010 vide Annexure R/1, therefore, it is clear that the petitioner has got admission after having knowledge that his passport and visa has been kept by the authorities and condition for not leaving India has been imposed upon him while granting. Thus, it is clear that petitioner has taken admission in the aforesaid institution having full knowledge of the conditions of the bail order and further after futile attempts for quashing the FIR.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that to get education is a fundamental right of petitioner.
6. But in this Court's opinion such right cannot be exercised to defeat the legal proceedings which are pending against the petitioner.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has cited judgment of the Apex Court in the case of M. M. Co-operative Bank Ltd. vs. J. P. Bhimani and another, 2010(1) MPWN 108 in which it has been held that Court while granting the bail cannot impose unreasonable conditions. He has also cited judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Mohinder Kaur vs. State of Punjab, AIR 2008 SC 2068 in which it has been held that direction for seizing appellant's passport cannot be given in petition under section 438, Criminal Procedure Code.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further cited judgment of the Hon. Apex Court in the case of Sushil Kumar Sharma vs. Union of India and another, 2005 SCC (Cri) 1473 in which it has been held that the misuse of provisions of section 498-A, the legislature to find out ways how that makers of frivolous complaints or allegations can be appropriately dealt with.
9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant has also cited judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Sultan Kamruddin Dharani vs. The Union of India and others, dated 19-9-2008 passed in Criminal Writ Petition No. 865/2007) and judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Alok Kumar vs. The State, dated 15-10-2009 passed in Criminal M. C. 2817/2009 in which it has been held that if the charge against the petitioner have already been framed, the apprehension of the prosecution that he is not likely to attend the trial, if permitted to go abroad, cannot be said to be unfounded. And on the basis of petition for granting permission to go abroad
