9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 1981X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the accusation against them so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to investigating agency. iii. That the petitioners shall not leave India without the prior permission of the Court. iv. That the petitioners will seek regular bail on the presentation of challan in Court. 3. The complainant i.e., father of the deceased filed an appeal before the Hon'ble Apex Court to challenge order dated 21.11.2017 passed by this Court but the same was dismissed vide order dated 11.12.2017 and the order passed by this Court on 21.11.2017 was upheld. Thereafter, the petitioner was issued a notice by the respondent to appear before the Investigating Agency. Petitioner appeared as and when required. He filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C before this Court seeking permission to travel abroad i.e., U.S.A from 19.01.2018 to 09.02.2018. Having no objection from CBI, the petitioner was allowed to travel abroad on 18.01.2018 subject to following conditions:- This court feels that the necessary security in the aforesaid terms be furnished to the investigating officer or any official de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r counsel further submits that the petitioner has to approach the Court repeatedly for seeking permission to travel abroad, which is not only the wastage of time of the Court but the Investigating Agency exercises its discretion to oppose such permission. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner is a frequent visitor to foreign countries and there is no progress in the investigation. During past, the petitioner has neither misused the concession of permission sought for travelling abroad nor likely to run away from the process of law. The condition of seeking prior permission from the Court to travel abroad is unnecessary and unreasonable restriction resulting into the wastage of precious time of the Court as well as to file a petition frequently by the petitioner. 6. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgments in cases Capt. Anila Bhatia v. State of Haryana (Criminal Misc. No. M-42638 of 2018, decided on 09.10.2018), Manmohan Singh v. CBI 2004(77) DRJ 341, Anil Rai v. CBI 2008(25) RCR (Crl.) 370, Bina K. Ramani v. State (Crl M.C. No. 3605 of 2009) decided on 05.02.2010, G. Vetrivel Sami @ Swami v. CBI (Crl. M.C. No. 83 of 2012) decided on 20. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or he had been previously convicted on two or more occasions of [a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment for three years or more but not less than seven years]; Provided that the Court may direct that a person referred to in clause (i) or clause (ii) be released on bail if such person is under the age of sixteen years or is a woman or is sick or infirm: Provided further that the Court may also direct that a person referred to in clause (ii) be released on bail if it is satisfied that it is just and proper so to do for any other special reason: Provided also that the mere fact that an accused person may be required for being identified by witnesses during investigation shall not be sufficient ground for refusing to grant bail if he is otherwise entitled to be released on bail and gives an undertaking that he shall comply with such directions as may be given by the Court; Provided also that no person shall, if the offence alleged to have been committed by him is punishable with death, imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for seven years or more, be released on bail by the Court under this subsection without giving an opportunity of hearing to the public p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e directs. (7) If, at any time after the conclusion of the trial of a person accused of a non-bailable offence and before judgment is delivered, the Court is of opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of any such offence, it shall release the accused, if he is in custody, on the execution by him of a bond without sureties for his appearance to hear judgment delivered. 437A. Bail to require accused to appear before next appellate Court. - (1) Before conclusion of the trial and before disposal of the appeal, the Court trying the offence or the Appellate Court, as the case may be, shall require the accused to execute bail bonds with sureties, to appear before the higher Court as and when such Court issues notice in respect of any appeal or petition filed against the judgment of the respective Court and such bail bonds shall be in force for six months. 10. Section 438 of the Cr.P.C is also relevant, which is reproduced as under:- 438. Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest- (1) Where any person has reason to believe that he may be arrested on an accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence, h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... such facts to the Court or to any police officer; (iii) a condition that the person shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court; (iv) such other condition as may be imposed under subsection (3) of section 437, as if the bail were granted under that section. (3) If such person is thereafter arrested without warrant by an officer in charge of a police station on such accusation, and is prepared either at the time of arrest or at any time while in the custody of such officer to give bail, be shall be released on bail; and if a Magistrate taking cognizance of such offence decides that a warrant should issue in the first instance against that person, he shall issue a bailable warrant in conformity with the direction of the Court under subsection (1). Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C provides conditions including condition (iii) i.e., that the person shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court. 11. The petitioner is aggrieved by that condition that every time such prior permission is not required as he is to travel abroad frequently. He has never misused this concession as earlier he has visited number of countries. It has also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inging the equality clause of the Constitution. After the decision in Satwant Singh's case the Parliament passed the Passport Act, 1967 regulating conditions for the grant and refusal of passport and providing grounds for impounding passport. Even after passing of the said Act, in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India [(1978) 1 SCC 248] the Supreme Court held that the right to travel abroad is not only encompassed in the right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution, but that right could only be denied if the procedural law which governed its excuse is fair. 15. Even after enactment of the Act, in view of Article 21 of the Constitution as explained in Maneka Gandhi's case (supra) the right to travel abroad is encompassed in the right to personal liberty which cannot be deprived except in accordance with the procedure established by the law. The right to travel abroad can be deprived by following procedure established by the law. Sec. 437(3) of the Code requires and enables the criminal court while releasing a person accused or suspected of commission of a non bailable offence by imposing a reasonable condition that such person shall attend in accordance with the condit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der his passport. If necessary, it is open to the criminal court to direct the accused to execute bond in case he has to go abroad for any purpose, for appropriate amount with sureties undertaking to appear before the Investigating Officer or court as the case may be as and when required to do so. These are exhaustive as in some of the matters, it is to be borne in mind by the court while deciding whether there should be a condition to surrender the passport or when there is a request to release the passport already surrendered in court. 18. Same issue was there before Delhi High Court in case K. Ramani v. State 2014(10) RCR (Criminal) 1468 as well as judgment of Gujarat High Court in case Kenal Vrajmohan Shah v. Department of Revenue Intelligence 2016(341) ELT 37. 19. In said two judgments, the condition of surrendering passport and obtaining permission from the competent Court was dispensed with a direction to the petitioner to furnish an undertaking in writing to the Registrar of the Court to make herself available during the course of investigation or the trial as and when required apart from furnishing the details of travel to the Investigating Officer, including the pla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
