HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2680/2021
Ashok Singhvi S/o Shri A. M. Singhvi, R/o 3, Raj Bhawan Road,
Civil Lines, Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Deepak Chauhan For Respondent(s) : Mr. Imran Khan, PP.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Order 19/07/2021 Petitioner has preferred this criminal miscellaneous petition aggrieved by the order dated 12.02.2021 passed by Special Sessions Judge (PMLA Act, 2002/Communal Riots Cases), Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur, whereby application filed by the petitioner for grant of permission for traveling abroad, has been dismissed.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that son and daughter of the petitioner are permanent resident of USA. Daughter of the petitioner is Cardiologist. Her services come under essential services. So, she could not visit India to meet him. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that talk of marriage of the petitioner's grand son is to be finalized. So (Downloaded on 22/07/2021 at 09:15:29 PM) (2 of 3) [CRLMP-2680/2021] petitioner wants to go USA but trial Court wrongly rejected application for grant permission filed by him. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that petitioner seeks only three months' permission for visiting USA. So, order of trial Court be quashed.
Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the criminal miscellaneous petition and contended that son and daughter are permanent resident of USA. Petitioner is facing trial of serious offences. If the permission is given to him for going abroad, he will not come to India. So, application filed by him has rightly been rejected by the trial Court.
Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment Satwant Singh Sawhney Vs. D. Ramarathnam, Assistant Passport Officer-AIR 1967 SC 1836, Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India-(1978) 1 SCC 248, G.S.C. Rao Vs. State of UP-AIRONLINE 2019 SC 565, Hasan Aftab Paliwal Vs. State of Rajasthan-S.B. Cri. Misc. Pet. No.286/2020 & 5109/2019, Mukul Bhatia Vs. State-AIRONLINE 2018 DEL 3016, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Vs. Mohammed Nashruddin-AIRONLINE 2019 DEL 2193, Union of India Vs. Yoguy Rafidison-AIRONLINE 2019 BOM 484, Jai Narayan Prasad Sinha Vs. State of Jharkhand-2017(1) AJR 664, Allen C James Benjamin Vs. State-AIRONLINE 2018 KAR 1185.
I have considered the arguments advanced by both the parties.
Right to travel abroad is fundamental right. Trial Court has wrongly rejected the application filed by the petitioner for granting permission to go abroad. Order of the impugned dated 12.02.2021 (Downloaded on 22/07/2021 at 09:15:29 PM) (3 of 3) [CRLMP-2680/2021] passed by the trial Court, being devoid of merit, is liable to be set aside.
Petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. Trial Court is directed to impose appropriate condition and permit the petitioner to travel and stay abroad. Petitioner is also directed to furnish an undertaking to the effect that he will return to India within three months commencing from the date of journey to abroad.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Seema/117 (Downloaded on 22/07/2021 at 09:15:29 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)