Telangana High Court
Y S Chowdary vs Bureau Of Immigration on 5 January, 2024
Author: Surepalli Nanda
Bench: Surepalli Nanda
HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
WRIT PETITION No.270 OF 2024
ORDER:
Heard Mr. Vimal Varma Vasi Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Special Public Prosecutor for Central Bureau of Investigation appearing for respondent Nos.2 and Mr. Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 3.
2. The petitioner approached the Court seeking prayer as under:
"to issue order, writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus:-
a) Permit the petitioner to travel abroad from 20.01.2024 to 20.06.2024
b) B) Suspend the Look Out Circular issued against the petitioner for the period 20.01.2024 to 20.06.2024
c) C) Pass any other order(s) as it deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 submits that as on date no charge sheet has been filed and the petitioner has not been arrayed as accused in FIR even as on today.
2 WP_270_2023 SN,J
4. The purpose of visit as stated at paragraph No.2 of the supporting affidavit filed in support of the present writ petition is extracted hereunder.
"the petitioner is filing the present writ petition seeking direction to the respondent to permit the petitioner to travel abroad from 20.01.2024 to 20.06.2024. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner seeks permission to visit USA, Singapore, Dubai, Europe U.K and other ASEAN countries to explore opportunities in health care and possibilities of technological collaboration & transfer."
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the above purpose of visit of the petitioner this Court may pass orders permitting the petitioner to travel abroad. PERUSED THE RECORD.
6. The Apex Court in the judgment reported in 2013 (15) SCC page 570 in Sumit Mehta v State of NCT of Delhi at para 13 observed as under:
"The law presumes an accused to be innocent till his guilt is proved. As a presumable innocent person, he is entitled to all the fundamental rights including the right to liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India."
In the present case petitioner has not been arrayed as accused in FIR even as on date nor it is stated so in the counter filed by respondent No.2-CBI.
3 WP_270_2023 SN,J
7. The Apex Court in Menaka Gandhi v Union of India reported in 1978 (1) SCC 248, held that no person can be deprived of his right to go abroad unless there is a law enabling the State to do so and such law contains fair, reasonable and just procedure. Para 5 of the said judgment is relevant and the same is extracted below:
"Thus, no person can be deprived of his right to, go abroad unless there is a law made by the State prescribing the procedure for so depriving him and the deprivation is effected strictly in accordance with such procedure. It was for this reason, in order to comply with the requirement of Article 21, that Parliament enacted the Passports Act, 1967 for regulating the right to go abroad. It is clear from the provisions of the Passports, Act, 1967 that is lays down the circumstances under which a passport may be issued or refused or cancelled or impounded and also prescribes a procedure for doing so, but the question is whether that is sufficient compliance with Article 21. Is the prescription of some sort of procedure enough or must the procedure comply with any particular requirements? Obviously, procedure cannot be arbitrary, unfair or unreasonable. This indeed was conceded by the learned Attorney General who with his usual candour frankly stated that it was not possible for him to contend that any procedure howsoever arbitrary, oppressive or unjust may be prescribed by the law.
4 WP_270_2023
SN,J
Therefore, such a right to travel
abroad cannot be deprived except by just, fair and reasonable procedure.
8. The Division Bench of the Apex Court in its judgmentdated09.04.2019reportedin2019SCConline SC 2048 in Satish Chandra Verma v Union of India(UOI) and others it is observed at para 5 as under:
"The right to travel abroad is an important basic human right for it nourishes independent and self-determining creative character of the individual, not only by extending his freedoms of action, but also by extending the scope of his experience. The right also extends to private life; marriage, family and friendship which are the basic humanities which can be affected through refusal of freedom to go abroad and this freedom is a genuine human right."
9. Referring to the said principle and also the principles laid down by the Apex Court in several other judgments, considering the guidelines issued by the Union of India from time to time, the Division Bench of High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh inNoor Paul Vs. Union of India reported in 2022 SCC online P & H 1176 held that a right to travel abroad cannot be deprived except by just, fair and reasonable procedure.
5 WP_270_2023 SN,J
10. This Court opines that freedom to go abroad has much social value and represents the basic human right of great significance. It is settled law that the right to travel is a part of the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article21 of the Constitution of India, 1950.
11. Taking into consideration the fact that till as on date no charge sheet has been filed and the petitioner has not been arrayed as accused in FIR even as on today, and the law laid down by the Apex Court in various judgments (1) Satwant Singh Sawhney v D.Ramarathnam reported in 1967(2)SCR521para21(2)Menaka Gandhi v Union of India reported in 1978 (1) SCC 248 para 193, (3) Judgment dated 09.04.2019, in Satish Chandra Verma v Union of India (UOI) reported in (2019) SCC on line SC 2048 Para 5, (4) Judgment of the Apex Court in a judgment reported in 2013 (15) SCC page 570 in Sumit Mehta v State of NCT of Delhi, para 13 and (5) The Judgment of Division Bench of High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Noor Paul Vs. Union of India reported in 2022 SCC 6 WP_270_2023 SN,J online P & H 1176, and in view of the same, this Court is inclined to grant permission to the petitioner to travel abroad from 20.01.2024 to 20.06.2024.
12. The petitioner shall submit an undertaking with respondent No.2 stating that he will inform about his travel details including his mobile phone, Email ID etc, and also his departure and arrival. He shall be available with the Investigating Officer for the purpose of further investigation, if any, and he shall cooperate with the Investigating Officer in the said crime. In the aforesaid undertaking he has to specifically mention that he will return on or before 20.06.2024 and report to respondent No.2.
13. With the above observations, this writ petition is disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.
___________________________________ MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA Date:05.01.2024.
HK