2019 (2) TMI 1981 - HC - Indian Laws

Murder - Seeking for modification of condition of taking prior permission of the Court to travel abroad - Section 437 of the Cr.P.C - HELD THAT - The power granted by the Code under Sec. 437 of the Code to impose certain conditions including restriction on movement while granting bail in non bailable offence can be taken as procedure established by law as stated in Article 21 of the Constitution - The criminal courts have to take extreme care in imposing such condition. It cannot mechanically, and in every case where an accused has a passport impose a condition for its surrender. Law presumes an accused to be innocent till he is declared guilty. As a presumably innocent person he is entitled to all the fundamental rights guaranteed to him under the Constitution. At the same time, interest of the society has also to be protected. The court has to strike a balance between personal liberty of the accused guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, investigation rights of the police. The criminal court has to consider possibility of the accused if released on bail, fleeing justice and thereby thwarting the course of justice which affects the majesty of the law, as also the individual rights of the accused. The court has to consider antecedents of the person accused or suspected of commission of the offence, nature of the offence he is said to have committed, necessity for his presence for investigation, duration of investigation and such other relevant factors. The court has to decide whether notwithstanding the personal liberty of the accused, interest of justice required that his right of movement should be restricted during the pendency of the case by directing him to surrender his passport. In the present case as submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is a frequent visitor to foreign countries as in the past, he had to participated in certain conferences, seminars and to receive the prestigious award on behalf of his mother. The petitioner is stated to be involved in spreading and promoting the education business of Ryan Group. He is to travel abroad for his professional assignments as well as his contribution in various fields of education. The present petition is allowed and the condition of seeking prior permission before leaving to abroad is modified to the extent that the petitioner now onwards shall not be required to take permission of the Court to travel abroad. However, the petitioner is directed to furnish an undertaking in writing before the Investigating Agency that he will make himself available during course of investigation or trial as and when he is required apart from furnishing the details of his travel abroad to the Investigating Officer including the place where he is likely to stay and the countries he proposes to visit and the date of departure and of return.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Interim Bail Conditions
2. Petitioner's Request to Travel Abroad
3. Modification of Bail Conditions
4. Legal Precedents and Personal Liberty

Detailed Analysis:

1. Interim Bail Conditions:
The petitioner was initially granted interim bail on 07.10.2017, subject to the conditions under Section 438(2)(i) to (iv) Cr.P.C. These conditions included making themselves available for interrogation, not making any inducement or threat, not leaving India without court permission, and seeking regular bail upon the presentation of the challan.

2. Petitioner's Request to Travel Abroad:
The petitioner sought permission to travel to the U.S.A. from 19.01.2018 to 09.02.2018. The court allowed this on 18.01.2018, subject to the petitioner furnishing necessary security and reporting back to the investigating officer upon return.

3. Modification of Bail Conditions:
The petitioner filed a petition to modify the bail conditions, particularly the restriction on traveling abroad without prior court permission. The petitioner argued that this condition affected his personal liberty guaranteed under the Constitution and caused unnecessary delays and wastage of court time. The petitioner had complied with all conditions during previous travels and had no incriminating evidence against him.

4. Legal Precedents and Personal Liberty:
The petitioner cited various judgments to support his argument, emphasizing the fundamental right to travel abroad as part of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. The court discussed the relevant sections of Cr.P.C., including Sections 437 and 438, which allow imposing conditions while granting bail to ensure the accused's availability for investigation and trial. The court acknowledged the balance between personal liberty and the necessity of the accused's presence for investigation and trial.

Judgment:
The court allowed the petition and modified the condition requiring prior court permission for traveling abroad. The petitioner was directed to furnish an undertaking to the Investigating Agency that he would make himself available during the investigation or trial as required. The petitioner was also required to inform the Investigating Agency/trial Court a week in advance of his travel plans, including details of his stay and travel dates. Additionally, the petitioner had to furnish a surety bond amounting to ` one crore. The court granted liberty to the CBI/trial Court to revoke this order if the petitioner failed to comply with the conditions at any point during the investigation or trial.