THRISSUR v. HAWK INTERNATIONAL

HAWK INTERNATIONAL 3/181, THATTIL HOUSE, ANJANGADI, PUTHENPEEDIKA, THRISSUR - 680642, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR MR. HARISH, AGED 40, S/O VIVEKANANTHAN, RESIDING AT 3/181, THATTIL HOUSE, ANJANGADI, PUTHENPEEDIKA, THRISSUR, PIN - 680642 THIS OP (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

05.01.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P(Crl.) No.4 of 2024 2 K.BABU, J ------------------------------------------------- O.P(Crl.) No.4 of 2024 -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of January, 2024 J U D G M E N T The prayers in the Original Petition are as follows: “i) Pass an order to set aside and delete the condition imposed in Exhibit-P5 order to the extent of petitioner shall seek permission of the Court below for his travelling abroad; ii) Considering the exigencies and necessity for urgent consideration of the grievance voiced in this O.P(Crl.), production of English translations of documents in vernacular, may kindly be dispensed with for the time being; iii) To grant such other reliefs which are just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. The petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.805/2023 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court II, Thrissur.

3. Respondent filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short ‘the NI Act) against the petitioner before the Trial Court. In response to the summons issued by the Trial Court, the petitioner had appeared before the Trial Court. The Trial Court granted bail on 7.12.2023 and passed the following order: “Accused present. Bail granted. Complainant filed O.P(Crl.) No.4 of 2024 3 143A petition. Copy served. For R/P and for consideration of 143A application accused shall seek permission of complainant for travelling abroad. For R/P.”

4. Subsequently, the learned Magistrate corrected the order and passed the following: “Accused present. Bail granted. Complainant filed 143A petition. Copy served. For record plea and consideration of 143A application accused shall seek permission of court for travelling abroad. For record plea.”

5. Having regard to the nature of the reliefs sought for, notice to the respondent is dispensed with.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner is alleged to have committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act. The Trial Court, while granting bail to the petitioner has not stated any reason for imposition of the condition, restricting him from travelling abroad. Right to travel abroad is a fundamental right guaranteed and protected under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

8. In Barun Chandra Thakur v. Ryan Augustine Pinto [2019 (4) KLT OnLine 3239 (SC)], the Apex Court observed thus:- “9. ….. There could be no gainsaying to that the right to travel abroad is a valuable one and an integral part of the right to personal liberty. Equally, however, the pre-condition of securing prior permission before travelling O.P(Crl.) No.4 of 2024 4 abroad is a crucial ingredient which undoubtedly was engrafted as a condition for the grant of anticipatory-bail in this case. ……. At best, the condition for seeking permission before travelling abroad could have been regulated, not deleted altogether.”

9. In Pitam Pradhan v. State of A.P. [2014(2) KLT OnLine 1214 (SC)], the Apex Court permitted the petitioner therein to travel abroad noting that his job required him to travel abroad and may lose his employment, if he were not permitted to travel abroad. In Parvez Noordin Lokhandwalla v. State of Maharashtra [2020 (5) KLT OnLine 1170 (SC)], the Apex Court held thus:- “21. …...The lodging of an FIR should not in the facts of the present case be a bar on the travel of the appellant to the US for eight weeks to attend to the business of revalidating his Green Card. The conditions which a court imposes for the grant of bail - in this case temporary bail – have to balance the public interest in the enforcement of criminal justice with the rights of the accused. The human right to dignity and the protection of constitutional safeguards should not become illusory by the imposition of conditions which are disproportionate to the need to secure the presence of the accused, the proper course of investigation and eventually to ensure a fair trial. The conditions which are imposed by the court must bear a proportional relationship to the purpose of imposing the conditions. The nature of the risk which is posed by the grant of permission as sought in this case must be carefully evaluated in each case.”

10. The condition imposed by the Court below has no proportional relationship to the prosecution he faces. The condition O.P(Crl.) No.4 of 2024 5 imposed is highly exorbitant and arbitrary. Therefore, the condition imposed by the Trial Court as per Ext.P5 order, that the petitioner shall seek permission of the Court for travelling abroad stands set aside. The Original Petition (Crl.) is allowed. Sd/- K.BABU JUDGE O.P(Crl.) No.4 of 2024 6 APPENDIX OF OP(CRL.) 4/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 Exhibit P2 Exhibit P3 Exhibit P4 Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE SUMMONS DATED 30.11.2023 IN C C 805/23.ON THE FILE OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II, THRISSUR ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IN C.C. NO.805/2023 FILED UNDER SECTION 138 OF THE NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT DATED 26.10.2022 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II, THRISSUR TRUE COPY OF PETITION IN C.C. NO.805/2023 FILED UNDER SECTION 143A OF NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT DATED 6.12.2023 ON THE FILE OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II, THRISSUR TRUE COPY OF THE PRINT OUT OF CASE STATUS IN C.C. NO.805/2023 DATED 7.12.2023 TAKEN FROM THE OFFICIAL WEBSITE OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II, THRISSUR TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 7.12.2023 IN C.C. NO. 805/2023 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II, THRISSUR RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL