THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3413 OF 2025

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) to quash the order dated 23.12.2024 in Crl.M.P.No.790 of 2024 in C.C.No.18 of 2022 on the file of I-Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, L.B.Nagar. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 420, 406, 506 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 to 6 of Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act (for short ‘Act’). The petitioner is accused No.8 in the said case.

2. Crl.M.P.No.790 of 2024 was filed under Section 451 of Cr.P.C, seeking interim custody of passport bearing No.R5259216 of the petitioner for a period of three months i.e., from 01.01.2025 to 31.03.2025. The petitioner alleges that he was falsely implicated in this case on false and frivolous grounds, that the police arrested him and seized his passport No.R5259216. Thereafter, petitioner was released on bail; that the wife of petitioner is a software employee in Tata Consultancy at Belgium since 2022 and that he was invited to see his child, he requested the trial Court to return his passport for a period of three months from 01.01.2025 to 31.03.2025.

3. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed counter to the said petition alleging that the case was posted for trial, that accused Nos.1 to 7, and 9 to 11 in this case are already absconding and if the passport of the petitioner is returned, he may also abscond to Belgium. As such, prayed the trial Court to dismiss the said petition. The trial Court dismissed the said petition observing that as the case is at the stage of trial and the petitioner herein is only appearing before the Court. The allegations against the accused are that they created huge network and collected huge amounts from the public at large on the guise of false promises. Further there are 83 cases pending against the company in which the petitioner herein is an employee and that the offence alleged against the petitioner is an economic offence.

4. Heard Sri N. Jeevan Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri D.Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State.

5. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner has a genuine reason to travel abroad as he seeks to meet his wife and child, that the trial Court failed to consider that the petitioner is regularly attending Court proceedings and the apprehension that petitioner may flee the country is based on mere speculation and not on any material evidence. He further contended that mere pendency of a criminal case is not a ground to curtail the fundamental right unless there is substantial evidence indicating a flight risk. Further, petitioner is ready to furnish adequate security and ready to give undertaking regarding his return to India within the stipulated time. That the father of petitioner is the Dean of Indira Gandhi Agriculture University, Chattisgarh, and his mother was also a retired Government employee in Chattisgarh Secretariat and has deep rooted connection with India. Further, the Act do not impose absolute restriction on travel and Courts have earlier granted permission to travel in this type of offences by imposing appropriate conditions. Hence, prayed this Court to quash the order in Crl.M.P.No.790 of 2022 in C.C.No.18 of 2022.

6. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the accused in this case have collected huge amounts from the public and cheated them, the case is at the stage of trial, if the passport of petitioner is returned, he may abscond which may cause hardship to the trial. Hence, prayed to dismiss this petition.

7. Considering the submissions made by both the counsel and the material on record, the petitioner herein filed petition before the trial Court to permit him to travel abroad as he intend to meet his wife and child. The case registered against