2019 (1) TMI 1936 - HC - Money Laundering

Application for permission to go abroad - HELD THAT - The law governing the question of grant of permission to the petitioner for travelling abroad during the pendency of the trial has been elaborately discussed by this Court in authority and on the basis of the said authoritative pronouncements of the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court, it can be safely concluded that in normal circumstances, permission can be granted to the petitioner to travel abroad being his fundamental right to travel abroad, but the conditions are to be imposed for regulating and securing his presence during the trial. Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing an order denying permission to travel abroad for attending wedding ceremonies.
2. Argument regarding likelihood of absconding if permission granted.
3. Discussion on legal principles governing grant of permission to travel abroad during trial proceedings.
4. Conditions imposed for granting permission to travel abroad.

Issue 1:
The petitioner filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C seeking to quash an order that dismissed the application for permission to travel abroad to attend wedding ceremonies in Bangkok and Turkey. The petitioner had been released on bail in a complaint case related to offenses under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, and sought permission based on the condition imposed in the bail order.

Issue 2:
The respondent argued against granting permission, citing the risk of the petitioner absconding. The petitioner's counsel countered by highlighting the petitioner's financial stability, including liquid assets and immovable properties in India. The petitioner intended to attend the marriage ceremonies of childhood friends in Bangkok and Turkey and was willing to comply with any conditions set by the court.

Issue 3:
The judgment extensively discussed legal precedents governing the grant of permission to travel abroad during trial proceedings. Reference was made to various cases, including Srichand P. Hinduja v. State through CBI, Arun Kapoor v. State of Haryana, and others. It was established that while the right to travel abroad is fundamental, conditions must be imposed to ensure the petitioner's presence during trial proceedings.

Issue 4:
Based on the legal principles discussed, the court granted permission to the petitioner to travel abroad for the wedding ceremonies of his childhood friends in Bangkok and Turkey. Specific conditions were imposed, including restrictions on extending the stay, visiting other countries, tampering with evidence, and submitting passport details. Additionally, the petitioner was required to execute an FDR/bank guarantee of ?40 Lacs, refundable upon returning from the trips. The petition was allowed, setting aside the impugned order, and any pending applications were disposed of in light of the main judgment.