Trademark Dispute Over ‘Pe’ Settled Between Phone Pe and Bharat Pe  ||  Centre Starts Granting Citizenship Under CAA in West Bengal, Haryana and Uttarakhand  ||  Circular Regarding Prioritizing Cases of Litigants/Advocates with Disability, Issued by Delhi HC  ||  Del. HC: Free Wi-fi Facility Launched by Delhi High Court for Lawyers, General Public  ||  Ker. HC: Construction of Illegal Religious Structures Cannot be Permitted on Government Land  ||  Kar. HC: De-Nomination of Chairman of Minorities Commission by Govt. Before Term is Not Arbitrary  ||  Delhi High Court: Question of Property Title Can’t be Decided by Forums Under Senior Citizens Act  ||  Jh. HC: Can’t Cancel Bail Unless There is Violation of Bail Conditions or Accused Impedes Fair Trial  ||  Guidelines Issued by Delhi High Court for Trial Court Judges to Decide Transfer Applications  ||  P&H HC: Presence of Magistrate Mandatory to Prove Compliance With Section 52A of the NDPS Act    

Parvin Juneja vs. Directorate Of Enforcement And Anr. - (High Court of Delhi) (09 Aug 2023)

Personal liberty of a person has to be balanced with that of any condition imposed on him by a Court of law



The instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed on behalf of petitioner seeking setting aside and modification of impugned order passed by learned Special Judge (PC Act) and for grant permission to the Petitioner to travel abroad i.e. Canada, Norway and London from 26.08.2023 to 19.09.2023 for admission process of Petitioner's son and for leisure and business travel.

In the present case, it is not disputed that the present petitioner has travelled abroad on about 20 occasions in the past with permission of this Court and the learned Trial Court. It is also admitted that the petitioner has never misused the liberty of going abroad and had returned to India in time without violating any condition imposed on him for the purpose of going abroad. It is also noted that the son of the petitioner has to be admitted in York University to pursue Master Marketing (MMKG) Program. The respondent has not disputed the genuineness of the documents placed on record regarding admission of the son of the petitioner in the York University of Canada and that he has deposited the requisite part- payment towards the same.

As a parent, the petitioner's presence, assistance and support is a precious right as well as moment for the parent, the child and the family, which should be allowed to the petitioner, in the absence of anything reflecting violation of any condition in the past or the petitioner not returning back to the country. This Court will not deny this moment of togetherness to the family and the son and the father at the time of his admission in a University of his choice.

The personal liberty of a person has to be balanced with that of any condition imposed on him by a Court of law for the purpose of securing his attendance and attending the proceedings lest he is not available to face trial. In the circumstances as the present case, the past conduct of the Petitioner of having been granted permission to go abroad about 20 times and not violating any terms of such orders and returning back to India weigh in this Court's mind while granting him permission to go abroad.

Present Court is inclined to allow the prayer of the petitioner to travel abroad to Canada for the purpose of admission of his son for 15 days. Petition disposed off.


Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved