Ashutosh Bajoria S/O Late Shri ... vs Rajesh Kumar Sharma
2022 Latest Caselaw 7941 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

      S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 10793/2022

Ashutosh Bajoria S/o Late Shri Shrigopal Bajoria, Aged About 45
Years, Managing Director Of M/s Agribiotech Industries Ltd.,
Resident Of Plot No. 404, Nemi Sagar Colony, Vaishali Nagar,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
                                                                   ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
Rajesh    Kumar     Sharma,        Assistant       Director,     Directorate   Of
Enforcement, 2Nd Floor, Jeevan Nidhi-Ii, L.i.c Building, Bhawani
Singh Road, Jaipur- 302005. Through Public Prosecutor.
                                                                 ----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. A.K. Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ramesh Chandra Sharma, Advocate and Mr. Ashutosh Bhatia, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anand Sharma, Advocate Mr. Chandra Shekhat Sinha, Advocate

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order

21/12/2022

Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner with the

following prayer:-

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that, in view of the above mentioned facts and circumstances and in the interest of justice, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to accept and allow the present petition allow and permit the petitioner to travel to Singapore for attending the business meeting from 01.01.2023 upto 15.01.2023 and investor meet at Dubai from 16.03.2023 upto 19.01.2023.

Any other appropriate orders as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice."

Learned Senior Counsel submits that the learned

Special Judge while granting bail to the petitioner vide order dated

(2 of 3) [CRLMP-10793/2022]

23.06.2022 has put a condition that the petitioner would not leave

India without permission of the Court.

Learned Senior Counsel submits that for attending

necessary business meetings at Singapore and Dubai, the

presence of the petitioner is required. Counsel submits that the

petitioner approached the concerned Special Judge and wanted to

submit an application seeking permission to travel abroad for

business meetings and also for modification in the condition of the

bail order. Counsel submits that at the relevant time, the

ministerial staff of the Court was on strike/common leave for an

indefinite period, hence the learned Judge refused to

accept/entertain the said application. So under these

circumstances, the petitioner left with no other alternative

remedy except to approach this Court by way of this petition

under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Counsel

submits that right to travel abroad is the fundamental right of the

petitioner under Articles 21 and 91A of the Constitution of India.

Counsel submits that the right to travel abroad is an important

basic human right. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance

on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Satish

Chandra Verma Vs. Union of India and Ors. : Civil Appeal

No. 3802/2019. Counsel for the petitioner has also placed

reliance on judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India reported in 1978 AIR 597.

Counsel submits that under these circumstances, this petition may

be entertained and permission be granted to the petitioner to go

abroad to attend the necessary business meetings.

Per contra, learned Senior Central Government counsel

appearing for the respondent has opposed the submissions made

(3 of 3) [CRLMP-10793/2022]

by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the

instant petition before this Court is not maintainable as the

petitioner cannot be allowed to bypass the jurisdiction of the trial

Court who put the condition, by which the petitioner has been

restrained to go abroad without seeking prior permission of the

Court. Counsel further submits that now the strike is over and the

ministerial staff has started working, so the petitioner can

approach the trial Court for redressal of his grievances.

Heard and considered the submissions made by the

learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available

on record.

This fact is not in dispute that the petitioner intended to

submit an application seeking permission to go aboard before the

trial Court. The ministerial staff was on common leave/strike at

the relevant time but the strike is over now. The petitioner cannot

be allowed to by-pass the jurisdiction of the trial Court who put

the condition while granting bail to the petitioner that he will not

go abroad without seeking prior permission of the Court. The

petitioner is required to approach trial Court and file application

for seeking such permission before the concerned Court.

Instant petition stands disposed of with direction to the

petitioner to submit the application before the trial Court and if

such application is submitted, the trial Court is expected to decide

the same in accordance with law on the same day.

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

MR/134

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)