RAKA GHIRRA VS. CBI CHANDIGARH Present: Mr. Nikhil Ghai, Advocate for the applicant-appellant.

Mr. Gagandeep Singh Wasu, Spl. PP For the respondent-CBI.

Mr. Shubham Mangla, Addl. PP for UT Chandigarh.

****

CRM-11450-2026 Allowed as prayed for. Annexure P-6 is taken on record, subject to just exceptions.

CRM-5850-2026

1. Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant, 61 years old, submits that she had previously been granted permission to go abroad vide order dated 01.12.2016 during trial and vide order dated 10.12.2019. On both occasions she came back timely. Now she wants to visit Spain, Switzerland and Czechia for a period of one month from 10.04.2026 to 10.05.2026. Flight tickets and hotel bookings have been furnished as Annexure A-5 and details of moveable and immoveable properties as Annexure A-6.

2. Learned counsel for the U.T. Chandigarh has verified the same and has produced a copy of the letter issued by the Estate Office, U.T. Chandigarh.

3. Learned counsel for CBI opposes the present application. He, however, prays that stringent conditions be imposed upon her in case she is to be granted the permission as sought.

4. Hon'ble The Supreme Court in the case of Parvez Noordin Lokhandwalla vs. State of Maharashtra and another (2020) 10 SCC 77, wherein the relief to travel abroad was granted and in Srichand P. Hinduja vs. State through CBI, New Delhi, 2002 (3) RCR (Crl.), 186, wherein a condition to execute a bond was imposed while granting such permission.

5. Further, in the case of Satish Chandra Verma vs. Union of India and others 2019(2) SCT 741, it was held that “The right to travel abroad is an important basic human right for it nourishes independent and self-determining creative character of the individual, not only by extending his freedoms of action, but also by extending the scope of his experience. The right also extends to private life; marriage, family and friendship are humanities which can be rarely affected through refusal of freedom to go abroad and clearly show that this freedom is a genuine human right. (See Mrs. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and Another (1978) 1 SCC 248). In the said judgment, there is a reference to the words of Justice Douglas in Kent v. Dulles 357 US 116 which are as follows: “Freedom to go abroad has much social value and represents the basic human right of great significance.”

6. Keeping in view the aforesaid and in the interest of justice, prayer of the applicant-petitioner is accepted. She is granted permission to travel abroad w.e.f. 10.04.2026 to 10.05.2026, subject to the following conditions:

i. She shall furnish necessary bail bonds before the concerned Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate against her properties details of which are mentioned in the affidavit Annexure P-6 by submitting the title deeds thereof.

ii. She shall furnish one surety of her family members in the sum of Rs.30 lakh to the satisfaction of the concerned Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate.

iii. She shall also furnish a bank guarantee in the sum of Rs.10 lakh as a security with the concerned Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate, and an undertaking by way of an affidavit that if she fails to return within on expiry of the aforesaid stipulated period, the said amount shall be forfeited to the State.

iv In the undertaking by way of her affidavit, she shall also mention her itinerary, attach e-tickets and visa and state that she will appear within 3 days from the date of her return from abroad and surrender her passport forthwith.

v. She shall not visit any other country except Spain, Switzerland and Czechia during the said period for which the permission to travel abroad has been granted.

vi. Copies of this order be sent to the Embassies of the said Countries situated at New Delhi.

vii. She shall furnish her mobile number and e-mail Id, at the time of furnishing sureties, which shall be kept operational at all times during the period of visit.

(AMAN CHAUDHARY)

March 30, 2026 JUDGE

Poonam Sharma