State Of Rajasthan, Through The Learned Pp vs For Respondent(s)

: Mr. Aman Ali For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Sharma, AGA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI (Through Video Conferencing) Order 25/07/2025

1. The petitioner, who was made an accused in FIR No.274/2021 registered for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 332, 353, 307, 436 and 427 of the IPC, apprehending his arrest in the said case, preferred an anticipatory bail application bearing S.B. Criminal Misc. Basil Application No.8758/2022, which came to be allowed vide order dated 27.06.2022. While granting anticipatory bail, a condition was imposed upon the petitioner, as per which, he must not leave India without prior permission of this court.

2. The petitioner has preferred the instant application seeking relaxation in the above condition.- [2025:RJ-JP:28107] (2 of 6) [CRLMA-315/2025]

3. It is averred in the application that the petitioner is indulging in import-export business and is registered with the Government of India under the Registration No.08CSWPA9392P1ZI. It is contended that for smooth functioning of the business, the petitioner is required to frequently visit foreign countries, but due to imposition of the condition in the bail order he is facing hardships. The petitioner preferred an application before the trial court for grant of permission to visit foreign countries for business purposes, but the said application has been dismissed by the trial court vide order dated 06.06.2025. Hence, the instant application.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on the record.

5. The petitioner is engaged in the import-export business, and in order to ensure the smooth functioning and growth of his enterprise, it is essential for him to travel to foreign countries, as such visits are integral to the conduct of his business and earning his livelihood. The Supreme Court of India has interpreted Article 21 broadly to include the right to livelihood, which means the State cannot arbitrarily take away a person's means of earning living. In Smt. Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India, reported in AIR 1978 SC 597, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the expression “personal liberty” under Article 21 of the Constitution of India has a wider amplitude and in light of the above, this court is of the view that the same also includes right to go abroad. A [2025:RJ-JP:28107] (3 of 6) [CRLMA-315/2025] person cannot be deprived to this right except in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the law.

6. A Coordinate Bench of this Court has discussed similar issue in the case of Abhayjeet Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Misc.Petition No.5870/2024) decided on 02.09.2024. The order above reads as under:- “ 10. Trite law it is that right to travel is intrinsically contained in the right to earn a livelihood. Courts have consistently upheld this as a fundamental right, subject of course to reasonable restrictions. The petitioner, who is primarily a farmer cultivating 'Kinnu' in his orchards, exports some of his produce to Saudi Arabia and has established business relations there. He seeks to travel abroad to further these business interests. It is also acknowledged position that a 11. short-term passport validity poses practical difficulties in obtaining visas from certain countries. Whether the passport is valid for one year or ten years does not materially affect the allegations against the petitioner regarding potential absconding. Thus the renewal of his passport for the full 10-year duration would not in any case prejudice the respondent or the complainant.

12. Moreover, the petitioner has not been convicted of any offense; he is merely facing charges. Under the law, he is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The restrictions imposed on his passport validity appear to the petitioner, pre-emptively punish undermining the principle of presumption of innocence enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Denying a 10-year passport validity without cogent reasons amounts to an arbitrary restriction on this right and does not align with the principles of justice, equity, and fairness. [2025:RJ-JP:28107] (4 of 6) [CRLMA-315/2025]

13. There is no substantive evidence or reasonable apprehension expressed or presented before this Court that the petitioner poses a flight risk or that he intends to abscond from the legal proceedings. His established business ties in India, particularly in agriculture, further negate the possibility of him absconding. Not only that, it transpires that he has his parents also residing in India with him who are his dependents.

14. As an agriculturist involved in the export of 'Kinnu' produce to Saudi Arabia, the petitioner’s ability to travel internationally, be it Saudi Arabia or any other country, is directly linked to his livelihood and economic stability. There is no gainsaying that restriction of a one-year passport validity places an undue burden on his business operations, affecting not only his income but also the livelihoods of those employed under him.

15. The Passport Act, 1967, and the Rules framed thereunder do not provide for arbitrary reduction in the validity period of a passport for individuals not convicted of any offense. The issuance of a one-year passport, in this case, appears to lack any statutory backing and thus, contravenes the provisions of the Passport Rules.

16. Requiring the petitioner to frequently renew his passport every year not only places an undue burden on him but also on judicial and administrative resources, leading to unnecessary litigation and wastage of public funds and time.

17. As regards the pending proceedings against the petitioner, the issuance of a 10-year passport will not impede the ongoing criminal proceedings in any way. The petitioner has demonstrated his commitment to attend court hearings and comply with all court directives. Proper conditions can be [2025:RJ-JP:28107] (5 of 6) [CRLMA-315/2025] imposed to ensure his appearance, such as requiring prior court permission for international travel.”

6. In the present case, the investigation is still ongoing and the charge-sheet is yet to be filed. Even if a charge- sheet is eventually filed against the petitioner, considering the nature of the case, it is likely that the trial may take considerable time to conclude, potentially extending over several years. This court is of the considered view that merely on account of the pendency of a criminal case, a person cannot be indefinitely restrained from traveling abroad, especially when such travel is essential for earning his livelihood. Merely being accused of a crime is not enough to deny the right to travel, unless specific grounds justify it, like flight risk, tampering with evidence etc. are available. No such grounds are present in the case at hand. The petitioner was granted anticipatory bail long back on

27.06.2022 and there is no report of misuse of the indulgence granted by this court. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be absolutely unjustified to deny permission to petitioner to go abroad to earn his livelihood moreso when he has shown willingness to appear before the investigating agency whenever required.

7. In this background, the instant criminal miscellaneous application is allowed and it is directed that the petitioner would be permitted to travel to foreign countries for a period [2025:RJ-JP:28107] (6 of 6) [CRLMA-315/2025] of two years from today and the pendency of the criminal case referred above would not be considered as an impediment for the same. His application renewal/issuance of passport or his desire to go abroad by applying visa shall not be hindered due to pendency of the above mentioned criminal case, provided he is otherwise eligible. He shall be at liberty to file application for extension of the above period, which shall be considered in accordance with the circumstances prevailing at that time. Pramod/35 (FARJAND ALI),J