IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 10.02.2026 YOGESH DUGGAL …Petitioner V/S STATE OF PUNJAB …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL Present: Mr. Vivek K. Thakur, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Kunwarbir Singh, AAG Punjab.

****

SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL, J.

1. Order dated 06.02.2026 of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, SAS Nagar, declining prayer of the petitioner to travel abroad has been assailed by way of this petition under Section 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was accused in FIR No.79 dated 27.05.2024, which was at investigation stage and challan was yet to be presented. He further submits that petitioner was employed as Product Manager in Oceaneering International, Inc. and was required to visit abroad in connection with his official duties. He had been invited to visit Head Office of the company in Houstan, Texas, USA to participate in a workshop from 14.02.2026 to 05.03.2026 and the tickets were also booked by the company. He further submits that application for permission to travel abroad and release of passport was moved before learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, SAS Nagar which was erroneously dismissed. It is argued that the right to travel abroad was fundamental right of the petitioner and could not be curtailed. It is argued that impugned order of learned JMIC, Ludhiana was violative of petitioner’s fundamental right under Article 21 of Constitution of India to travel abroad. Further, petitioner undertook to return to India before 07.03.2026 and to abide by any reasonable condition as may be imposed by the Court. In support of his submissions, he relies upon judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Parvez Noordin Lokhandwalla Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another 2021(1) SCC(Cri.) 436 and W.P.(s) (Crl.) No. 83/2025 titled Ranveer Gautam Allahabadia Vs. Union of India and Other and of this Court in Naginder Singh Rana Vs. State of Punjab 2004(3) RCR(Criminal) 912, Harcharan Singh Vs. State of Punjab 2025 NCPHHC 51662, Deepak Sharma Vs. State of Haryana and Others 2022(1) RCR (Criminal) 731.

3. Learned State counsel has supported the impugned order of learned JMIC, SAS Nagar submitting that the case was still under investigation. Petitioner wanted to flee to USA after obtaining permission of the Court and would never return to India to face trial. Prayer was made for dismissal of the petition.

4. In a Five Judge Bench judgment titled Satwant Singh Sawhney versus D. Ramarathnam, Assistant Passport Officer, New Delhi and others, 1967 AIR Supreme Court 1836, Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:

“13. The relevant article of the Constitution is Article 21, reads “Art. 21 No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law."

If the right to travel is a part of the personal liberty of person he cannot be deprived of his right except according... the procedure established by law. This court in Gopolan case(1) has held that law in that article means enacted law and it is conceded that the State has not made any law depriving or regulating the right of a person to travel abroad.”

xx xx xx “32. For the reasons mentioned above we would accept the view of Kerala, Bombay and Mysore High Courts in preference to that expressed by the Delhi High Court. It follows that tinder Art. 21 of the Constitution no person can be deprived of his right to travel except according to procedure established by law. It is not disputed that no law was made by the State regulating ,or depriving persons of such a right.”

5. Later, in Smt. Maneka Gandhi versus Union of India and another, 1978 AIR Supreme Court 597, Hon’ble Supreme Court in a Constitutional Bench judgment observed as below:

“xx xx The expression 'personal liberty' in Article 21 is of the widest amplitude and it covers a variety of rights which go to constitute the personal liberty of man and some of them have be