Back
Ex-DSP's Passport to Europe: Punjab & Haryana HC Affirms Travel as a
In a ruling balancing with judicial oversight, the has granted permission to Raka Ghirra, a 61-year-old former Deputy Superintendent of Police convicted in a bribery case, to travel abroad for a month. Justice Aman Chaudhary, hearing applications in CRA-S-719-2024 (CRM-5850-2026 and CRM-11450-2026), allowed her visit to Spain, Switzerland, and Czechia from , subject to stringent financial and reporting conditions. This decision underscores the court's recognition of international travel as an essential facet of , even amid ongoing criminal proceedings.
Roots of the Request: A History of Compliance and Conviction
Raka Ghirra's legal journey traces back to a bribery conviction, with her appeal pending before the High Court. Previously, during the trial stage, she received court nods for foreign trips in and , returning promptly each time—a track record emphasized in her latest plea. Supporting her application, Ghirra submitted flight tickets, hotel bookings (Annexure A-5), and details of her movable and immovable properties (Annexure A-6), verified by authorities. The request framed the trip as a personal respite, highlighting her age and clean return history.
Clash in Court: 's Caution vs. Appellant's Freedom Plea
Ghirra's counsel highlighted her compliance with prior permissions and invoked constitutional protections for travel. The Additional Public Prosecutor confirmed document authenticity but deferred to the 's stance. Opposing the plea, the 's Special Public Prosecutor argued for denial or, at minimum, ironclad safeguards, citing flight risk concerns in a serious bribery matter. They urged conditions like bonds and guarantees, drawing from precedents where such permissions came with safeguards.
Judicial Compass: Precedents Chart the Path to Permission
Justice Chaudhary navigated a web of and High Court rulings to affirm travel rights. Central was Satish Chandra Verma vs. Union of India ((2) SCT 741), echoing Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248, which rooted travel abroad in 's . The court quoted Justice Douglas from Kent v. Dulles (357 US 116): “Freedom to go abroad has much social value and represents the of great significance.”
Further, Parvez Noordin Lokhandwalla vs. State of Maharashtra (2020) 10 SCC 77 granted similar relief, while Srichand P. Hinduja vs. State through (2002 (3) RCR (Crl.) 186) endorsed bonds for assurance. These precedents tipped the scales, prioritizing human rights tempered by accountability.
Key Observations
“The right to travel abroad is an important 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..."
"She shall furnish necessary 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."
"She shall furnish one surety of her family members in the sum of Rs.30 lakh... and a bank guarantee in the sum of Rs.10 lakh as a security... to be forfeited if she fails to return."
Verdict with Anchors: Freedom Bound by Bonds
The court allowed the trip
"
,"
imposing robust checks:
-
secured by property deeds.
- Rs. 30 lakh family surety and Rs. 10 lakh bank guarantee, forfeitable on overstay.
- Affidavit with itinerary, e-tickets, visa; passport surrender within three days of return.
- Strict itinerary limits—no detours beyond the three nations.
- Continuous mobile/email contact; embassy notifications.
This framework ensures Ghirra's return while vindicating travel as a "genuine human right." For future cases, it signals courts' willingness to grant such permissions in non-absconder scenarios, provided risks are mitigated—potentially easing restrictions for compliant appellants in protracted appeals.
