Karnataka HC: A Neighbour Cannot be Charged With Matrimonial Cruelty under Section 498A IPC  ||  Revisional Power U/S 25B(8) of Delhi Rent Control Act is Supervisory; HC Cannot Revisit Facts  ||  Poverty Cannot Bar Parole; Rajasthan HC Waives Surety For Indigent Life Convict, Sets Guidelines  ||  Delhi High Court: Late Payment of TDS Does Not Absolve Criminal Liability under the Income Tax Act  ||  NCLT Kochi: Avoidance Provisions under Insolvency Code Aim to Restore, Not Punish, Parties  ||  Bombay High Court: In IBC Cases, High Courts Lack Parallel Contempt Jurisdiction over the NCLT  ||  Supreme Court: Concluded Auction Cannot Be Cancelled Merely To Invite Higher Bids at a Later Stage  ||  SC: In Customs Classification, Statutory Tariff Headings and HSN Notes Prevail over Common Parlance  ||  SC: Under the Urban Land Ceiling Act, Notice U/S 10(5) Must be Served on the Person in Possession  ||  Supreme Court: Only Courts May Condone Delay; Tribunals Lack Power Unless Statute Allows    

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

MANU/DE/5191/2023

Criminal

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.

Tags : TRAVEL   PERMISSION   ENTITLEMENT  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved