[2026:RJ-JD:14854]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2168/2026 Anil Katariya S/o Late Shri Hardwari Lal Katariya, Aged About 69 Years, R/o 1-G -43, Jawahar Nagar, Sriganganagar.

----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Bohra For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ramesh Dewasi, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU

Order

01/04/2026 The present criminal misc. petition under Section 528 BNSS has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved against the order dated 09.02.2026 passed by learned ACJM No.1, Sri Ganganagar in Case No.165/2025 whereby the application filed by the petitioner for going abroad, has been rejected.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned trial court has rejected the application solely on the ground that, though, proceedings in Complaint Case No.14/2020 have been stayed by Hon’ble High Court vide order dated 08.05.2023, however, at the same time, the matter being pending and under consideration before Hon’ble High Court, the permission cannot be granted. Heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the niceties of the matter.

It is not in dispute that both sons of petitioner are residing in Australia and the petitioner wants to visit them and pendency of criminal proceedings cannot be a ground to reject the application.

Learned trial court has rejected the application on absolute flimsy grounds, which are not sustainable. Moreover, further proceedings in Criminal Complaint No.14/2020, in which, the present application was filed, has already been stayed by this Court in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.1963/2023 vide order dated 08.05.2023. In such circumstance, there is no reason to deny permission to the petitioner to go abroad.

The Apex Court has clearly held that right to travel is a fundamental right, and permission cannot be denied merely because of pendency of criminal case.

A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in SB Criminal Misc.

Petition No.1279/2025 in Rehman Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors., has permitted the petitioner to go abroad. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are reproduced hereunder :-

“5.The similar issue has been elaborately discussed by the Coordinate bench, Jaipur in the case of Neeraj Saxena v. Rajasthan Electronics and Instruments Ltd. [S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16380/2024] dated 23.10.2024 For ready reference, the relevant paragraphs of the order are being reproduced herein below:-

10. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Smt. Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India, reported in AIR 1978 SC 597, has held that the expression “personal liberty” under Article 21 of the Constitution of India has a wider amplitude which includes right to go abroad. A person cannot be deprived to this right except in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the law.

11. Similarly in the case of Satish Chandra Verma (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

“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."

13. Even the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Kent v. Dulles, reported in 357 US 116 1958, decided on 16.06.1958, has held as under:

“(i) Freedom to go abroad has much social value and represents the basic human right of great significance. (ii) Right to travel is a part of “liberty” of which a citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law.”

6.In this view of the matter, the Criminal Misc. Petition deserves to be allowed. The order dated 04.02.2025 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhadra District Hanumangarh is set aside. The