Rajasthan High Court
Ashok Singhvi S/O Shri A. M. ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 19 July, 2021
Bench: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
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
(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
(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
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
