[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Anil Katariya vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:14854) on 1 April, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:14854]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2168/2026
Anil Katariya S/o Late Shri Hardwari Lal Katariya, Aged About 69
Years, R/o 1-G -43, Jawahar Nagar, Sriganganagar.
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Bohra
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ramesh Dewasi, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU
Order
01/04/2026
The present criminal misc. petition under Section 528 BNSS
has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved against the order
dated 09.02.2026 passed by learned ACJM No.1, Sri Ganganagar
in Case No.165/2025 whereby the application filed by the
petitioner for going abroad, has been rejected.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned trial court
has rejected the application solely on the ground that, though,
proceedings in Complaint Case No.14/2020 have been stayed by
Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 08.05.2023, however, at the
same time, the matter being pending and under consideration
before Hon'ble High Court, the permission cannot be granted.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the
niceties of the matter.
(Uploaded on 04/04/2026 at 10:23:14 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14854] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-2168/2026]
It is not in dispute that both sons of petitioner are residing in
Australia and the petitioner wants to visit them and pendency of
criminal proceedings cannot be a ground to reject the application.
Learned trial court has rejected the application on
absolute flimsy grounds, which are not sustainable. Moreover,
further proceedings in Criminal Complaint No.14/2020, in which,
the present application was filed, has already been stayed by this
Court in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.1963/2023 vide order
dated 08.05.2023. In such circumstance, there is no reason to
deny permission to the petitioner to go abroad.
The Apex Court has clearly held that right to travel is a
fundamental right, and permission cannot be denied merely
because of pendency of criminal case.
A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in SB Criminal Misc.
Petition No.1279/2025 in Rehman Khan Vs. State of
Rajasthan and Ors., has permitted the petitioner to go abroad.
The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are reproduced
hereunder :-
"5.The similar issue has been elaborately discussed by the
Coordinate bench, Jaipur in the case of Neeraj Saxena v.
Rajasthan Electronics and Instruments Ltd. [S.B. Civil Writ
Petition No. 16380/2024] dated 23.10.2024 For ready
reference, the relevant paragraphs of the order are being
reproduced herein below:-
10. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Smt. Maneka
Gandhi Vs. Union of India, reported in AIR 1978
SC 597, has held that the expression "personal
liberty" under Article 21 of the Constitution of
India has a wider amplitude which includes right to
go abroad. A person cannot be deprived to this
right except in accordance with the procedure
prescribed by the law.
11. Similarly in the case of Satish Chandra Verma
(supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as
under:-
(Uploaded on 04/04/2026 at 10:23:14 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14854] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-2168/2026]
"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 are humanities which can be rarely
affected through refusal of freedom to go abroad
and clearly show that this freedom is a genuine
human right."
13. Even the Supreme Court of the United States
in the case of Kent v. Dulles, reported in 357 US
116 1958, decided on 16.06.1958, has held as
under:
"(i) Freedom to go abroad has much social value
and represents the basic human right of great
significance. (ii) Right to travel is a part of "liberty"
of which a citizen cannot be deprived without due
process of law."
6.In this view of the matter, the Criminal Misc. Petition
deserves to be allowed. The order dated 04.02.2025
passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Bhadra District Hanumangarh is set aside.
The petitioner is permitted to go to Kuwait for a limited
period i.e. for six months after his immigration check
out so that he may not lose his job which he was doing
since the year 2011 to earn his livelihood. The
pendency of criminal case shall not be taken as an
impediment against him for issuance of passport and
obtaining a visa to visit Kuwait provided he furnishes a
personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,00,000 as well as
two surety bonds each of Rs.5,00,000/ of his father and
mother residing here. He shall also furnish an
undertaking to the effect that if any of the condition is
contravened, his personal bond and amount of sureties
so furnished shall be forfeited and amenable to
recovery which shall thereafter be given to his wife. It
is further made clear that his foreign visit shall not
exceed more than six months from his immigration.
After returning back, he shall join the court proceedings
and during his absence, his counsel shall represent him
in the trial Court."
In view of the same, the present Criminal Misc. Petition
deserves to be allowed. The order dated 09.02.2026 passed by
learned ACJM No.01, Sri Ganganagar is set aside. The petitioner is
permitted to go abroad/Australia for a period of six months so
that he may meet his two children residing there. The pendency of
criminal case shall not be taken as an impediment against him for
(Uploaded on 04/04/2026 at 10:23:14 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14854] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-2168/2026]
issuance of passport and obtaining a visa to visit Australia,
provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,00,000
as well as two surety bonds each of Rs.5,00,000/- of two relatives
residing here. He shall also furnish an undertaking to the effect
that if any of the condition is contravened, his personal bond and
amount of sureties so furnished shall be forfeited and amenable to
recovery. After returning back, he shall join the court proceedings
and during his absence, his counsel shall represent him in the trial
Court.
In this view of the matter, the instant criminal misc. petition
is allowed. For further extension or visit to Australia, the petitioner
would be free to file a fresh application which shall be consider in
accordance with law as per the status of the trial at that stage.
Stay application and all pending applications, if any, stands
disposed of accordingly.
(BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU),J
66-Sanjay/-
(Uploaded on 04/04/2026 at 10:23:14 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
