##PAGE1##

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 6756/2025

Naresh Kumar S/o Shri Tola Ram, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Maliyo Ka Bas, Sumerpur, Dist. Pali, Raj.

----Petitioner Versus

State of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Naman Mohnot For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Singh Rajpurohit, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN

Order

17/04/2026

1. By way of this misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has challenged the order dated 04.08.2025 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur in Criminal Sessions Case No.42/2022, whereby the petitioner's application seeking permission to leave

India for business purposes has been rejected.

2. FIR No.391/2021 came to be registered against the accused- petitioner at Police Station Ratanada, Jodhpur for offences under Sections 376 and 342 IPC and after completion of investigation, charge sheet has been filed before the court concerned. However, vide order dated 23.11.2022 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.8080/2022, further proceedings in criminal case pending before learned Addl. Sessions Court, Women Atrocities Cases,

Jodhpur Metro, Jodhpur has been stayed.

(Uploaded on 22/04/2026 at 01:26:51 PM)

(Downloaded on 25/04/2026 at 10:29:38 AM)

(2 of 4) [CRLMP-6756/2025]

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner intends to go out of India to Vietnam in September, 2026 for some business purposes. The petitioner therefore, moved an application before learned trial court seeking permission to go abroad. However, the learned trial court, vide impugned order dated 04.08.2025 dismissed the application of the petitioner on the ground that trial is pending against the petitioner and evidence of material prosecution witnesses are yet to be recorded. Learned counsel argues that by order dated 23.11.2022, further proceedings before learned trial court have been stayed. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner has movable and immovable properties in India. The petitioner undertakes that as and when, the competent criminal court requires his appearance, he shall appear before it to face the trial. He further submits that every citizen has a fundamental right of freedom to move freely throughout the territory of India; and fundamental right of free to practice any profession, all to carry on any occupation, trade or business which should not be curtailed merely because the person is facing trial. Counsel submits that the petitioner is ready to furnish bank guarantee and fulfill other conditions, as imposed upon him. He thus prays that the impugned order dated 04.08.2025 may be quashed and the petitioner may be given permission to leave India to travel Vietnam till 30th September,

2026.

4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner's counsel. He submits that in case, the petitioner is given permission to leave India, there is every

(Uploaded on 22/04/2026 at 01:26:51 PM)

(Downloaded on 25/04/2026 at 10:29:38 AM)

(3 of 4) [CRLMP-6756/2025]

possibility that he would not return to India to face trial and he

may abscond.

5. The right to travel outside the country has also been upheld as an important element of human liberty in India. It constitutes an integral part of the “right to personal liberty” granted under Article 21 of the Constitution. It was clearly established by the historic decision of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India reported in AIR 1978 SC 597, whereby the Supreme Court has considerably enlarged the ambit of Article 21. As per the said judgment, the term “personal liberty” is much more than a guarantee against the deprivation of liberty in the traditional sense of detention and imprisonment, and covers a variety of freedoms which make life worth living and give a man’s personality its full stature. The freedom of movement out of the country is one such right that m