9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (9) TMI 2062 - HC - Money LaunderingApplication for grant of permission to go abroad - pendency of trial - HELD THAT - The permission to go abroad during pendency of trial should not invariably be declined unless there are reasons to believe that such permission is being sought for oblique considerations. In Anjal Kumar @ Angel Kumar Versus State of Punjab 2009 (10) TMI 980 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT , in somewhat similar circumstances, where a person was facing the criminal trial and was declined permission to go abroad, as the accused was facing trial in case under Section 420 , 406, 403, 34 IPC, the accused was allowed to go abroad and the Court. A direction is issued to the trial Court/Duty Magistrate to permit the petitioner to go abroad, for which, the petitioner shall execute a personal bond in a sum of ₹ 5 lakh with an undertaking that she would report back on or before 15.02.2019. The trial Court/Duty Magistrate may further impose any other condition which it may deem fit and proper in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case - Petition allowed.
Issues:
- Permission to travel abroad sought under Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Setting aside the order declining permission to go abroad by the trial Court. - Consideration of pending litigations between the parties. - Evaluation of the petitioner's conduct regarding previous permissions to travel abroad. - Balancing the advanced stage of trial with the petitioner's request to travel abroad. - Application of legal precedents regarding permission to travel abroad during the pendency of trial. Analysis: - The petitioner filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking permission to travel abroad to various destinations from 1st October 2018 to 31st January 2019 due to an FIR registered against her. The petitioner also requested to set aside the trial Court's order declining permission to go abroad. - The petitioner's senior counsel argued that the FIR was filed by her stepbrother, with whom she has pending civil litigations. It was highlighted that the petitioner had complied with previous permissions to travel abroad and had not violated any conditions imposed by the Court during her travels. - The Court noted that the trial was at an advanced stage but observed that the proceedings had been stayed in other connected litigations between the parties. It was emphasized that no prejudice would be caused to the complainant if the petitioner traveled abroad, given her consistent compliance with previous permissions. - Legal precedents were cited, such as the case of Srichand P. Hinduja, where conditions were imposed for allowing the accused to travel abroad. The Court also referred to the case of Arun Kapoor, where permission to release the passport was granted for business purposes. - The Court highlighted that permission to travel abroad during the trial should not be denied unless there are suspicions of misuse. Citing the case of Anjal Kumar, where permission was granted to travel abroad despite facing criminal charges, the Court emphasized the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. - Ultimately, the Court directed the trial Court to permit the petitioner to travel abroad, requiring her to execute a personal bond and report back by a specified date. The trial Court was given the discretion to impose any additional conditions deemed necessary. This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the legal arguments presented, the Court's considerations, and the application of legal precedents in granting permission for the petitioner to travel abroad during the pendency of the trial.
|
