The single judge bench of Justice Suvir Sehgal of the Punjab and Haryana High court in the case of Gaurav Raheja Vs State of Punjab and another granted permission to the petitioner to travel to Australia for 6 months on certain conditions.
BRIEF FACTS
The factual matrix of the case is that the present petition is filed under section 482 of the code of criminal procedure, 1973 to set aside the order passed by the learned judicial magistrate in which the application of the accused acquitted under Sections 498-A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 has been rejected by the hon'ble court for permission to go to Australia for 6 months.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail and further, the investigation is complete and the final report under Section 173 of the Code has been presented to the petitioner and other accused. also, the petitioner is a permanent resident of Australia and was granted permission, subject to conditions mentioned therein, to travel to Australia for six months. The time period was extended by this Court, and the petitioner returned to India before the expiry of the extended period. The counsel further submits that the petitioner has got an employment opportunity for an Australian company and the petitioner is permitted to avail of the offer and travel to Australia. Further, the petitioner is ready to deposit property papers of his father as a security and will abide by any other condition imposed by this Court.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the state submits that the present petition is not maintainable. Further, It has been claimed that the petitioner's employment offer is not genuine and that once permission is granted, he is unlikely to return.
COURT’S OBSERVATION
The hon'ble court stated that the issue of maintainability of the petitioner, raised by the counsel for the respondents deserves to be dealt with at the outset. Under Section 397(2) read with Section 401 of the Code, there is a specific bar to the exercise of revisional power against an interlocutory order, and the court relied upon the judgments titled M/s Bhaskar Industries Ltd. Versus M/s Bhiwani Denim & Apparels Ltd. And others and K.K. Patel and another Versus State of Gujarat and another.
Further, In order to determine the genuineness of the job offer of the petitioner, this Court directed him to give the details and documents of offered employment in a sealed cover to the Investigating Officer.
In the case of Satwant Singh Sawhney Versus D. Ramarathnam, Assistant Passport Officer, and Smt. Maneka Gandhi Verus Union of India held that
“The expression 'personal liberty in Article 21 of the Constitution of India is the widest amplitude, which includes the right to go abroad. A person cannot be deprived of this right except in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. In a matter arising out of a matrimonial dispute.”
After that, in the case of “Jaspal Kaur Bhinder Versus State of Punjab, it was held that
an accused has a right to
“travel abroad, though conditions can be imposed to ensure his presence before the Trial Court and in case any condition imposed by the Court is violated, appropriate coercive action can be taken.”
The court held that the order passed by the trial court deserves to be set aside and Petitioner is granted permission to travel to Australia for a period of six months subject to some conditions imposed by the court.
CASE NAME- Gaurav Raheja Vs State of Punjab and another
CORUM- Justice Suvir Sehgal
DATE- 05.08.2022
CITATION- CRM-M-19373-2022 (O&M)
Picture Source : https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bf/An_Air_India_flight_at_the_Netaji_Shubhas_Chandra_Bose_Airport.jpg