2019 (9) TMI 1658 - HC - Indian Laws

Seeking permission to travel abroad from the Criminal Courts - it is submitted that the appellant has been travelling to various countries de hors the pendency of criminal proceedings - HELD THAT - The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent would hold good as this country is facing lot of problems not only from external factors but also from forces, which are acting within the country. However, the fact remains that the appellant has travelled abroad for about 125 times and on all those occasions, he has returned back to India promptly and this is also admitted by the learned counsel for the respondent. When that is the case, there should not be any problem for the appellant to inform the Court concerned, give the travel details and thereafter leave the country. Taking into consideration all the above factors, this Court permits the appellant to inform the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai giving the travel details and thereafter leave the country. It is made clear that this order is passed taking into account the conduct of the appellant and his prompt return to his home country on all 125 overseas trips undertaken by him in the past and this order should not be quoted as a precedent in any other case. Appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Request to modify earlier order requiring permission to travel abroad.
2. Challenge against the order directing renewal of passport with conditions.
3. Interpretation of the notification requiring permission to travel abroad for individuals with pending criminal cases.
4. Consideration of appellant's past travel history and business background in relation to the need for court permission.

Analysis:
1. The appellant filed a writ appeal against the rejection of the request to modify an earlier order requiring permission to travel abroad. The appellant, a reputed businessman facing criminal proceedings, sought to inform the court rather than seek permission due to his extensive travel history and strong ties to India. The respondent argued that government notification mandates court permission for individuals with pending criminal cases to travel abroad.

2. The writ petition was initially allowed, directing the renewal of the appellant's passport for 10 years with conditions. The appellant was to surrender the passport before the Magistrate and seek permission from the Criminal Courts to travel abroad. The appellant's attempt to modify this condition was dismissed, leading to the appeal challenging the original order.

3. The court considered the government notification requiring court permission for individuals with criminal cases to travel abroad. Despite acknowledging the country's security concerns, the court emphasized the appellant's history of 125 overseas trips with prompt returns and his rooted business and family ties in India. The court concluded that informing the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate of travel details would suffice, allowing the appellant to travel without seeking explicit permission.

4. In light of the appellant's conduct, business background, and consistent return to India after overseas trips, the court permitted him to inform the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate before traveling abroad. The court's decision was based on the specific circumstances of the case and should not be used as a precedent in other cases. The writ appeals were disposed of with this direction, and no costs were awarded.