2016 (5) TMI 1195 - HC - Customs

Seeking modification in the order to remove the rider of obtaining permission from the learned trial court for each visit to abroad and come back to India - Appeal is pending against adjudication order but the presence of the petitioner is required before the learned trial court during trial court of the case - Held that - since the petitioner is having good business at UAE and his wife and family are also residing there if permission will not be given to him to visit UAE, then his business may be adversely effcted and his family may also suffered therefore, this petiton deserves acceptance. The learned trial court is directed to decide the application of the petitioner pending before it since 18.1.2016 within two days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order and accord him permission and in future, if he wants to go abroad after informing the court, he may be allowed to go abroad whenever necessity arises so that his business may not be affected and he may also take care of his family subject to the condition that trial, before the trial court may not be effected. - Decided in favour of petitioner

Summary

Issues:
1. Modification of order dated 24.4.2015 passed by Sessions Judge No.2, Jaipur Metropolitan regarding obtaining permission to visit abroad.
2. Consideration of the petitioner's status as an NRI and his business interests in Dubai.
3. Analysis of previous court judgments allowing accused persons to go abroad with certain conditions.
4. Balancing the need for the accused to travel for business and family reasons with the trial court's requirements.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, an accused in a criminal case, sought modification of the order requiring permission for each visit abroad. The petitioner's counsel argued that the petitioner, an NRI with business interests in Dubai, needed to travel for business and family reasons. The impugned order had remanded the matter back with the condition of seeking permission from the Magistrate for each visit, causing practical difficulties due to the time involved.

2. The petitioner's counsel highlighted the petitioner's qualifications and business in Dubai, emphasizing the necessity of his presence there for various business matters. The petitioner's trade license in Dubai was expiring soon, and his sponsor had communicated the need for his full-time presence in Dubai to manage company affairs, including visa renewals and trade license renewal. The petitioner's family, consisting of his wife and three children, also resided in Dubai, further justifying his need to travel there.

3. The petitioner's counsel cited previous court judgments where accused persons were allowed to travel abroad under specific conditions. Cases such as Ravikant S. Patil v/s Sarvabhouma S. Bagali, Salman Khan v/s State of Rajasthan, and others were referenced to support the argument that the petitioner should be permitted to travel to Dubai for business and family reasons, similar to conditions imposed in those cases.

4. The court considered the petitioner's business interests in UAE and the potential adverse effects on his business and family if travel permission was denied. In light of the circumstances, the court allowed the petition, directing the trial court to decide on the petitioner's pending application promptly and grant permission for travel within a specified timeframe. The court emphasized the importance of balancing the petitioner's need to travel with ensuring that trial proceedings were not disrupted.