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
