Arpan Saxena v. State of U.P. Anothers). No other application for contempt has been initiated or

her of the opportunity to explain the contents of the Final Report filed by Udaipur Police. The Contemnor falsely portrayed the character of the Petitioner in negative light by alleging that someone was falsely impleaded by the Petitioner in FIR, whereas, in fact, on 10.04.2025 upon learning about the Final Report in the FIR from ABAIL Section of Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad, the Petitioner/Complainant went to the Udaipur District Court and filed a protest petition dated 16.04.2025. This petition was accepted by the Hon'ble District Court on the same day, i.e. 16.04.2025. This act of concealment by Contemnor constitutes contempt of Court."

4. Further, the applicant has relied on certain precedents to support her application. In that regard, in paragraph no.9 of the said affidavit, it has been stated as below : "9. That Citations supporting the charge of criminal contempt of court in similar circumstances are as follows : Dhananjay Sharma v. State of Haryana, (1995) 3 SCC 757 the Supreme Court held that producing false documents and tampering with court records constitute criminal contempt, as they interfere with the due course of judicial proceedings, administration of justice and cannot be tolerated as it directly attacks the integrity of the judiciary. Chandra Shashi v. Anil Kumar Verma, (1995) 1 SCC 421 the Court observed that filing false affidavits and fabricated documents hampers the flow of justice and amounts to criminal contempt under section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. M.S. Ahlawat v. State of Haryana, (2000) 1 SCC 278 the Supreme Court emphasized that tampering with judicial records and filing false affidavits are serious offences amounting to criminal contempt and directed the initiation of criminal proceedings. Daya Shankar v. High Court of Allahabad, (1987) 3 SCC the Court observed that filing forged documents and false affidavits amounts to gross contempt of court. Delhi Judicial Service Association v. State of Gujarat & Ors., (1991) 4 SCC 406 the Supreme Court held that interference with the due course of justice, or scandalizing the court, can amount to criminal contempt. T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal, (1977) 4 SCC 467 though focused on frivolous litigation, the Court emphasized the misuse of the judicial process as an abuse warranting strict action. R.S. Sujlana v. State of Punjab, 1997 (2) RCR (Criminal) 596 (P&H) the Court held that impersonation before the court and filing of forged documents is criminal contempt. Vinay Chandra Mishra, (1995) 2 SCC 584 the case dealt with professional misconduct and behaviour that lowered the authority of the Court, qualifying as criminal contempt. Murray & Co. v. Ashok Kr. Newatia & Anr., (2000) 2 SCC 367 the Court held that filing false affidavits and misrepresentation before the court with the intent to mislead the court is a deliberate act of contempt, undermining the authority of the judiciary, amount to interference with justice, constituting criminal contempt. In the Anil Ambani contempt case, allegations arose regarding tampering with the Supreme Court's order. The Delhi High Court directed the Supreme Court's Registry to supply necessary documents to the police for investigation, underscoring the seriousness of such allegations. Muthu Karupan v. Parithi Ilamvazhuthi (AIR 2011 SC 1645) the Hon'ble Supreme Court said that the giving evidence by filing a false affidavit is an evil that should be curbed with strong hands. State of M.P. v. Rajendra Singh (JT 1996 (7) 216 1996 SCALE (5) 793 by submitting a false plea before the court to gain favourable order and relief from the court. In such circumstances, the Supreme Court held that person deserves punishment if we do award by punishment, then in future unscrupulous petitioners would pollute the stream of the court which would adversely affect the administration of justice and it purity. Consequently, respondent got guilty of criminal contempt of court and awarded punishment of simple imprisonment for three months."

5. On query made, the applicant candidly states, the occasion to file the contempt has arisen in view of the facts recognised by the learned single judge in his order dated 28.04.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. 9565 of 2020 (Arpan Saxena Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.).

6. However, we are not impressed. First, the non-applicant Arpan Saxena approached this Court by means of Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. 9565 of 2020 (Arpan Saxena Vs. State of U.P. and Another), seeking anticipatory bail. That application was allowed vide order dated 17.02.2021. Relevant to the present proceedings, the said non-applicant was granted anticipatory bail, amongst others subject to fulfilment of the following condition: "(iii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he has passport, the same shall be deposited by him before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned."

7. Thereafter Modification Application No. 02 of 2024 alongwith Delay Condonation Application No. 03 of 2024 was filed by the non-applicant. On that following order was passed, on 07.03.2025: "List has been revised. Heard Sri Ramesh Upadhyay, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Rajan Upadhyay, learned counsel for applicant and learned AGA for State. Order on Delay Condonation Application No.3/2021 Cause shown for delay in filing of application is sufficient. Delay in filing of appeal is condoned. Delay condonation application is allowed. Order on Modification Application No.2/2024 The above noted application has been filed praying for modification of the order dated 17.02.2021 passed by this Court on anticipatory bail application of the applicant by deleting the condition no.3 in the aforesaid order. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has deposited the passport in compliance of the earlier order passed by this Court, but it has already expired and being reputed employee of Maruti Suzuki the applicant is required to travel abroad and, therefore, his passport may be returned for renewal. The Division Bench of this Court in Contempt Application(Criminal) No.-2 of 2024, has granted liberty to the applicant to travel abroad on furnishing a F.D.R. of Rs. 10,00,000/- as security and imposing other conditions as per paragraph no.7 of the aforesaid order which is quoted hereinbelow:- "To safeguard the interest of petitioner, it is expected that; (a) in case, any permission is granted to the respondent to travel abroad, stringent conditions will be laid in terms of well settled law that the respondent will be directed to deposit a minimum of Rs.10,00,000/- in FDR as security that he will be return back within time granted by Trial Court; (b) Before traveling abroad, the respondent will submit his itinerary along with his mobile phone and e- mail which he will use while residing abroad; (c) The respondent will also submit an undertaking before the Trial Court at Delhi that in case he fails to return within the time granted by the said Court, the aforesaid amount of Rs.10,00,000/- will be forfeited and will be paid to the applicant/ petitioner and (d) In case the respondent return back within time granted by Court, the said amount will be returned back to him. " Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgment of this Court passed in the case of Mirza Shafiq Hussain Shafaq and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and Ors. MANU/UP/1696/2022, and has submitted that the right to travel abroad encompasses to right to personal liberty. Learned AGA has opposed the submissions and submitted that the applicant may misuse the facility provided by this Court for traveling abroad. After hearing the rival contentions, this Court finds from the ratio of the judgment of this Court and the judgment of the Division Bench quoted hereinabove, that the condition no.3 imposed in the order dated 17.02.2021 passed by this Court deserves to be deleted and order modified accordingly. The rest of the order dated 17.02.2021 shall remain intact. The passport of the applicant shall be returned to the applicant within period of three days from the date of production of certified copy of this order. The modification application is allowed."

8. Thereafter, the present appellant filed Recall Application No. 05 of 2025, seeking recall of the order dated 07.03.2025. On that, the following order was passed on 26.03.2025: "Order on Criminal Misc. Recall Application No.5 of 2025

1. Heard Ms. Ankita Priyadarshini, recall applicant-opposite party no.2, in person; Sri Ramesh Upadhyaya, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Rajan Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the applicant; learned AGA for opposite party no.1 and perused the material on record.

2. The above noted application has been filed by opposite party no.2 - recall applicant, praying that order dated 7.3.2025 of modification of condition no.3 of the order dated 17.2.2021 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No.9565 of 2020 directing release of the applicant's passport passed without hearing recall applicant- opposite party no.2, may be recalled. The passport of the applicant may not be released and the condition no.3 in the anticipatory bail order dated 17.2.2021 of applicant passed by this Court may be restored.

3. The recall applicant-opposite party no.2, appearing in person, has submitted that the applicant, Arpan Saxena, is her husband. The order dated 7.3.2025 passed by this Court was passed without giving opportunity of hearing to her. The applicant did not complied the condition of surrender of passport as per orders of this Court dated 18.12.2020 and 17.2.2021 for long time. The applicant wants to flee away from the country by selling her matrimonial home and her jewelries. He wants to settle abroad alongwith his parents. She has further submitted that in case the applicant is allowed to leave the country, divorce proceedings pending between them before the court at Delhi shall be prejudiced. She has also alleged that number of criminal cases are pending against the applicant. Therefore he does not deserves to be returned his passport. Hence it has been prayed that order dated 7.3.2025 passed by this Court should be recalled.

4. A counter affidavit has been filed by the applicant stating that this Court has passed the order dated 7.3.2025 relying upon the judgement passed in the case of Mirza Shafiq Hussain Shafaq and others Vs. State of U.P. (MANU/UP/1696/2022) and order passed by Division Bench in Contempt Application filed by opposite party no.2. It has further been stated in the counter affidavit that applicant appeared before the police station on 02.01.2021 for surrendering his passport, but it was not accepted on the ground that passport had already expired. The applicant has been granted permission by Metropolitan Magistrate-1, Dwarka Court, New Delhi on 21.4.2023 granting no objection to his traveling abroad if the passport of the applicant is renewed. The aforesaid order was challenged by opposite party no.2 by filing her revision before the Sessions Court, Dwarka, Delhi, but it was dismissed on 22.4.2024. He has submitted that the order of the contempt court dated 18.3.2024 was not challenged by the opposite party no.2 before any forum. The applicant has not violated any order of this Court as alleged falsely by the opposite party no.2.

5. After hearing rival submissions, a look at the order dated 7.3.2025 passed by this Court is required and it is quoted hereinbelow:- "List has been revised. Heard Sri Ramesh Upadhyay, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Rajan Upadhyay, learned counsel for applicant and learned AGA for State. Order on Delay Condonation Application No.3/2021 Cause shown for delay in filing of application is sufficient. Delay in filing of appeal is condoned. Delay condonation application is allowed. Order on Modification Application No.2/2024 The above noted application has been filed praying for modification of the order dated 17.02.2021 passed by this Court on anticipatory bail application of the applicant by deleting the condition no.3 in the aforesaid order. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has deposited the passport in compliance of the earlier order passed by this Court, but it has already expired and being reputed employee of Maruti Suzuki the applicant is required to travel abroad and, therefore, his passport may be returned for renewal. The Division Bench of this Court in Contempt Application(Criminal) No.-2 of 2024, has granted liberty to the applicant to travel abroad on furnishing a F.D.R. of Rs. 10,00,000/- as security and imposing other conditions as per paragraph no.7 of the aforesaid order which is quoted hereinbelow:- "To safeguard the interest of petitioner, it is expected that; (a) in case, any permission is granted to the respondent to travel abroad, stringent conditions will be laid in terms of well settled law that the respondent will be directed to deposit a minimum of Rs.10,00,000/- in FDR as security that he will be return back within time granted by Trial Court; (b) Before traveling abroad, the respondent will submit his itinerary along with his mobile phone and e- mail which he will use while residing abroad; (c) The respondent will also submit an undertaking before the Trial Court at Delhi that in case he fails to return within the time granted by the said Court, the aforesaid amount of Rs.10,00,000/- will be forfeited and will be paid to the applicant/ petitioner and (d) In case the respondent return back within time granted by Court, the said amount will be returned back to him. " Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgment of this Court passed in the case of Mirza Shafiq Hussain Shafaq and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and Ors. MANU/UP/1696/2022, and has submitted that the right to travel abroad encompasses to right to personal liberty. Learned AGA has opposed the submissions and submitted that the applicant may misuse the facility provided by this Court for traveling abroad. After hearing the rival contentions, this Court finds from the ratio of the judgment of this Court and the judgment of the Division Bench quoted hereinabove, that the condition no.3 imposed in the order dated 17.02.2021 passed by this Court deserves to be deleted and order modified accordingly. The rest of the order dated 17.02.2021 shall remain intact. The passport of the applicant shall be returned to the applicant within period of three days from the date of production of certified copy of this order. The modification application is allowed."

6. A perusal of the aforesaid order shows that the modification application alongwith delay condonation application was listed before this Court in the cause list. At the time of grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant, opposite party no.2 was represented by counsel. Even in the revised cause list, no one turned up to oppose this modification application.

7. Opposite party no.2 appearing in person has stated that the learned counsel, who represented her, when the anticipatory bail was granted to the applicant on 17.2.2021, had no instructions on her behalf to appear in this case, when modification application was heard and decided. He was engaged only to argue Anticipatory Bail Application No.9565 of 2020.

8. This Court finds that when the case was taken up, earlier counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2, Sri Aishwaraya Pratap Singh, did not appeared and informed the Court that instructions have been withdrawn from him by opposite party no.2 and notices may be issued to opposite party no.2 to answer the modification application. Therefore, this Court proceeded with hearing of modification application and passed the order dated 7.3.2025 giving reasons for the same. There is nothing in the recall application, except the allegations that applicant did not deposited his passport within the time provided by this Court, which may persuade this Court to recall the order dated 7.3.2025.

9. Apex Court had held that right to travel according to law is in accordance with Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

10. Apex Court in the case of Satwant Singh Sawhney Vs. D. Ramarathnam, Asstt. Passport Officer (1967) 3 SCR 525 in para 31, held as under: "31. For the reasons mentioned above, we would accept the view of Kerala, Bombay and Mysore High Courts in preference to that expressed by the Delhi High Court. It follows that under Article 21 of the Constitution no person can be deprived of his right to travel except according to procedure established by law. It is not disputed that no law was made by the State regulating or depriving persons of such a right."

11. Similar view was reiterated in the decision rendered by 7-Judge Bench of Apex Court in Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India and another (1978) 1 SCC 248 wherein at page 280, it was held as under: ".....Now, it has been held by this Court in Satwant Singh's case (supra) that 'personal liberty' within the meaning of Article 21 includes within its ambit the right to go abroad and consequently no person can be deprived of this right except according to procedure prescribed by law. Prior to the enactment of the Passports Act, 1967, there was no law regulating the right of a person to go abroad and that was the reason why the order of the Passport Officer refusing to issue passport to the petitioner in Satwant Singh's case (supra) was struck down as invalid. It will be seen at once from the language of Article 21 that the protection it secures is a limited one.It safeguards the right to go abroad against executive interference which is not supported by law; and law here means 'enacted law' or' State law' (Vide A.K. Gopalan's case). 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.."

12. Recall applicant-opposite party no.2 has not pointed out any law which may prohibit travel of applicant abroad.

13. In view of the above consideration, no ground has been made for recall of the order dated 7.3.2025. The recall application is misconceived and is hereby rejected."

9. Thereafter, the present applicant filed Recall Application No. 07 of 2025. That has been disposed of by order dated 28.4.2025. After taking note of the earlier orders dated 07.03.2025 and 26.03.2025, the learned single judge has made the following pertinent observations: "After hearing the rival contentions, this court finds that when the order dated 26.3.2025 was passed by this court, a counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the applicant to the recall application but later it has been found that it was not sworn before the oath commissioner.Counter affidavit aforesaid was filed in the court and was relied by this court while passing the order dated 26.3.2025. When the above noted recall application was filed by the opposite party no.2, this Court realized that counter affidavit filed on 26.3.3025 on behalf of the applicant to the recall application no. 5 of 2025 was not duly sworn before oath commissioner. Today Shri Ramesh Upadhyay, learned Senior counsel for the applicant has submitted that he had filed duly sworn counter affidavit before this court and not the unsworn counter affidavit on record. He has submitted that inquiry should be ordered against office of this court in this regard.He has filed another short counter affidavit today, which has been duly sworn before oath commissioner on 12.4.2025. He has also filed reply to the above noted recall application, which is being taken on record. This court finds that one counter affidavit was filed by the learned counsel for the applicant in court on 26.3.2025. It is not sworn before oath commissioner.The same is on record. It contains marking at places made by the court and therefore, the submission of learned Senior Counsel for the applicant that he filed duly sworn copy of the counter affidavit on 26.3.2025 is not correct. Once it is found that only the unsworn counter affidavit is on record there is no reason why inquiry should be ordered against the office. This court finds that apart from the grounds for recall mentioned in the recall application filed by the opposite party no.2 noted above , filing of the unsworn counter affidavit on behalf of the applicant is also a ground for recall of the orders of this court dated 7.3.2025 and 26.3.2025. The orders aforesaid are hereby recalled.The applicant is directed to deposit his passport before the trial court within a period of one week and not to leave the country without order from this Court. This court is of the view that conduct of learned Senior Counsel for applicant of making allegations against the court and office of this court are very unbecoming of a Senior Counsel.The court restrains itself from making any further observation against the Senior Counsel for the applicant and is not inclined to hear this case anymore. The case is released. Hence put up this case before Hon'ble The Chief Justice for nominating this case to some other Bench."

10. Thus, the undoubtable situation emerges that the learned single judge has recalled the orders dated 07.03.2025 and 26.03.2025. Consequently, Modification Application No. 2 of 2024 filed alongwith Delay Condonation Application No. 3 of 2024, filed by the non-applicant Arpan Saxena and the Recall Application No. 5 of 2025, filed by the present applicant, have become pending, before the learned single judge.

11. In view of such status of those/main proceedings, the basis disclosed in the instant Contempt Application remains in the realm of disputed facts awaiting consideration by the learned single judge. All issues being raised and pressed may engage the attention of the learned single judge, at his discretion and to the extent warranted.

12. The judicial precedents would also remain (if at all required), to be considered by the learned single judge.

13. In matters of criminal contempt, the contempt Court may not pre-empt the exercise of judicial powers by the Court before whom the matter may be pending on merit issues.

14. In view of such fact, the present application is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 16.5.2025 Abhilash (Sandeep Jain, J.) (S. D. Singh, J.) ABHILASH SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

her of the opportunity to explain the contents of the Final Report filed by Udaipur Police. The Contemnor falsely portrayed the character of the Petitioner in negative light by alleging that someone was falsely impleaded by the Petitioner in FIR, whereas, in fact, on 10.04.2025 upon learning about the Final Report in the FIR from ABAIL Section of Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad, the Petitioner/Complainant went to the Udaipur District Court and filed a protest petition dated 16.04.2025. This petition was accepted by the Hon'ble District Court on the same day, i.e. 16.04.2025. This act of concealment by Contemnor constitutes contempt of Court."

4. Further, the applicant has relied on certain precedents to support her application. In that regard, in paragraph no.9 of the said affidavit, it has been stated as below : "9. That Citations supporting the charge of criminal contempt of court in similar circumstances are as follows : Dhananjay Sharma v. State of Haryana, (1995) 3 SCC 757 the Supreme Court held that producing false documents and tampering with court records constitute criminal contempt, as they interfere with the due course of judicial proceedings, administration of justice and cannot be tolerated as it directly attacks the integrity of the judiciary. Chandra Shashi v. Anil Kumar Verma, (1995) 1 SCC 421 the Court observed that filing false affidavits and fabricated documents hampers the flow of justice and amounts to criminal contempt under section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. M.S. Ahlawat v. State of Haryana, (2000) 1 SCC 278 the Supreme Court emphasized that tampering with judicial records and filing false affidavits are serious offences amounting to criminal contempt and directed the initiation of criminal proceedings. Daya Shankar v. High Court of Allahabad, (1987) 3 SCC the Court observed that filing forged documents and false affidavits amounts to gross contempt of court. Delhi Judicial Service Association v. State of Gujarat & Ors., (1991) 4 SCC 406 the Supreme Court held that interference with the due course of justice, or scandalizing the court, can amount to criminal contempt. T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal, (1977) 4 SCC 467 though focused on frivolous litigation, the Court emphasized the misuse of the judicial process as an abuse warranting strict action. R.S. Sujlana v. State of Punjab, 1997 (2) RCR (Criminal) 596 (P&H) the Court held that impersonation before the court and filing of forged documents is criminal contempt. Vinay Chandra Mishra, (1995) 2 SCC 584 the case dealt with professional misconduct and behaviour that lowered the authority of the Court, qualifying as criminal contempt. Murray & Co. v. Ashok Kr. Newatia & Anr., (2000) 2 SCC 367 the Court held that filing false affidavits and misrepresentation before the court with the intent to mislead the court is a deliberate act of contempt, undermining the authority of the judiciary, amount to interference with justice, constituting criminal contempt. In the Anil Ambani contempt case, allegations arose regarding tampering with the Supreme Court's order. The Delhi High Court directed the Supreme Court's Registry to supply necessary documents to the police for investigation, underscoring the seriousness of such allegations. Muthu Karupan v. Parithi Ilamvazhuthi (AIR 2011 SC 1645) the Hon'ble Supreme Court said that the giving evidence by filing a false affidavit is an evil that should be curbed with strong hands. State of M.P. v. Rajendra Singh (JT 1996 (7) 216 1996 SCALE (5) 793 by submitting a false plea before the court to gain favourable order and relief from the court. In such circumstances, the Supreme Court held that person deserves punishment if we do award by punishment, then in future unscrupulous petitioners would pollute the stream of the court which would adversely affect the administration of justice and it purity. Consequently, respondent got guilty of criminal contempt of court and awarded punishment of simple imprisonment for three months."

5. On query made, the applicant candidly states, the occasion to file the contempt has arisen in view of the facts recognised by the learned single judge in his order dated 28.04.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. 9565 of 2020 (Arpan Saxena Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.).

6. However, we are not impressed. First, the non-applicant Arpan Saxena approached this Court by means of Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. 9565 of 2020 (Arpan Saxena Vs. State of U.P. and Another), seeking anticipatory bail. That application was allowed vide order dated 17.02.2021. Relevant to the present proceedings, the said non-applicant was granted anticipatory bail, amongst others subject to fulfilment of the following condition: "(iii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he has passport, the same shall be deposited by him before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned."

7. Thereafter Modification Application No. 02 of 2024 alongwith Delay Condonation Application No. 03 of 2024 was filed by the non-applicant. On that following order was passed, on 07.03.2025: "List has been revised. Heard Sri Ramesh Upadhyay, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Rajan Upadhyay, learned counsel for applicant and learned AGA for State. Order on Delay Condonation Application No.3/2021 Cause shown for delay in filing of application is sufficient. Delay in filing of appeal is condoned. Delay condonation application is allowed. Order on Modification Application No.2/2024 The above noted application has been filed praying for modification of the order dated 17.02.2021 passed by this Court on anticipatory bail application of the applicant by deleting the condition no.3 in the aforesaid order. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has deposited the passport in compliance of the earlier order passed by this Court, but it has already expired and being reputed employee of Maruti Suzuki the applicant is required to travel abroad and, therefore, his passport may be returned for renewal. The Division Bench of this Court in Contempt Application(Criminal) No.-2 of 2024, has granted liberty to the applicant to travel abroad on furnishing a F.D.R. of Rs. 10,00,000/- as security and imposing other conditions as per paragraph no.7 of the aforesaid order which is quoted hereinbelow:- "To safeguard the interest of petitioner, it is expected that; (a) in case, any permission is granted to the respondent to travel abroad, stringent conditions will be laid in terms of well settled law that the respondent will be directed to deposit a minimum of Rs.10,00,000/- in FDR as security that he will be return back within time granted by Trial Court; (b) Before traveling abroad, the respondent will submit his itinerary along with his mobile phone and e- mail which he will use while residing abroad; (c) The respondent will also submit an undertaking before the Trial Court at Delhi that in case he fails to return within the time granted by the said Court, the aforesaid amount of Rs.10,00,000/- will be forfeited and will be paid to the applicant/ petitioner and (d) In case the respondent return back within time granted by Court, the said amount will be returned back to him. " Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgment of this Court passed in the case of Mirza Shafiq Hussain Shafaq and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and Ors. MANU/UP/1696/2022, and has submitted that the right to travel abroad encompasses to right to personal liberty. Learned AGA has opposed the submissions and submitted that the applicant may misuse the facility provided by this Court for traveling abroad. After hearing the rival contentions, this Court finds from the ratio of the judgment of this Court and the judgment of the Division Bench quoted hereinabove, that the condition no.3 imposed in the order dated 17.02.2021 passed by this Court deserves to be deleted and order modified accordingly. The rest of the order dated 17.02.2021 shall remain intact. The passport of the applicant shall be returned to the applicant within period of three days from the date of production of certified copy of this order. The modification application is allowed."

8. Thereafter, the present appellant filed Recall Application No. 05 of 2025, seeking recall of the order dated 07.03.2025. On that, the following order was passed on 26.03.2025: "Order on Criminal Misc. Recall Application No.5 of 2025

1. Heard Ms. Ankita Priyadarshini, recall applicant-opposite party no.2, in person; Sri Ramesh Upadhyaya, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Rajan Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the applicant; learned AGA for opposite party no.1 and perused the material on record.

2. The above noted application has been filed by opposite party no.2 - recall applicant, praying that order dated 7.3.2025 of modification of condition no.3 of the order dated 17.2.2021 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No.9565 of 2020 directing release of the applicant's passport passed without hearing recall applicant- opposite party no.2, may be recalled. The passport of the applicant may not be released and the condition no.3 in the anticipatory bail order dated 17.2.2021 of applicant passed by this Court may be restored.

3. The recall applicant-opposite party no.2, appearing in person, has submitted that the applicant, Arpan Saxena, is her husband. The order dated 7.3.2025 passed by this Court was passed without giving opportunity of hearing to her. The applicant did not complied the condition of surrender of passport as per orders of this Court dated 18.12.2020 and 17.2.2021 for long time. The applicant wants to flee away from the country by selling her matrimonial home and her jewelries. He wants to settle abroad alongwith his parents. She has further submitted that in case the applicant is allowed to leave the country, divorce proceedings pending between them before the court at Delhi shall be prejudiced. She has also alleged that number of criminal cases are pending against the applicant. Therefore he does not deserves to be returned his passport. Hence it has been prayed that order dated 7.3.2025 passed by this Court should be recalled.

4. A counter affidavit has been filed by the applicant stating that this Court has passed the order dated 7.3.2025 relying upon the judgement passed in the case of Mirza Shafiq Hussain Shafaq and others Vs. State of U.P. (MANU/UP/1696/2022) and order passed by Division Bench in Contempt Application filed by opposite party no.2. It has further been stated in the counter affidavit that applicant appeared before the police station on 02.01.2021 for surrendering his passport, but it was not accepted on the ground that passport had already expired. The applicant has been granted permission by Metropolitan Magistrate-1, Dwarka Court, New Delhi on 21.4.2023 granting no objection to his traveling abroad if the passport of the applicant is renewed. The aforesaid order was challenged by opposite party no.2 by filing her revision before the Sessions Court, Dwarka, Delhi, but it was dismissed on 22.4.2024. He has submitted that the order of the contempt court dated 18.3.2024 was not challenged by the opposite party no.2 before any forum. The applicant has not violated any order of this Court as alleged falsely by the opposite party no.2.

5. After hearing rival submissions, a look at the order dated 7.3.2025 passed by this Court is required and it is quoted hereinbelow:- "List has been revised. Heard Sri Ramesh Upadhyay, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Rajan Upadhyay, learned counsel for applicant and learned AGA for State. Order on Delay Condonation Application No.3/2021 Cause shown for delay in filing of application is sufficient. Delay in filing of appeal is condoned. Delay condonation application is allowed. Order on Modification Application No.2/2024 The above noted application has been filed praying for modification of the order dated 17.02.2021 passed by this Court on anticipatory bail application of the applicant by deleting the condition no.3 in the aforesaid order. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has deposited the passport in compliance of the earlier order passed by this Court, but it has already expired and being reputed employee of Maruti Suzuki the applicant is required to travel abroad and, therefore, his passport may be returned for renewal. The Division Bench of this Court in Contempt Application(Criminal) No.-2 of 2024, has granted liberty to the applicant to travel abroad on furnishing a F.D.R. of Rs. 10,00,000/- as security and imposing other conditions as per paragraph no.7 of the aforesaid order which is quoted hereinbelow:- "To safeguard the interest of petitioner, it is expected that; (a) in case, any permission is granted to the respondent to travel abroad, stringent conditions will be laid in terms of well settled law that the respondent will be directed to deposit a minimum of Rs.10,00,000/- in FDR as security that he will be return back within time granted by Trial Court; (b) Before traveling abroad, the respondent will submit his itinerary along with his mobile phone and e- mail which he will use while residing abroad; (c) The respondent will also submit an undertaking before the Trial Court at Delhi that in case he fails to return within the time granted by the said Court, the aforesaid amount of Rs.10,00,000/- will be forfeited and will be paid to the applicant/ petitioner and (d) In case the respondent return back within time granted by Court, the said amount will be returned back to him. " Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgment of this Court passed in the case of Mirza Shafiq Hussain Shafaq and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and Ors. MANU/UP/1696/2022, and has submitted that the right to travel abroad encompasses to right to personal liberty. Learned AGA has opposed the submissions and submitted that the applicant may misuse the facility provided by this Court for traveling abroad. After hearing the rival contentions, this Court finds from the ratio of the judgment of this Court and the judgment of the Division Bench quoted hereinabove, that the condition no.3 imposed in the order dated 17.02.2021 passed by this Court deserves to be deleted and order modified accordingly. The rest of the order dated 17.02.2021 shall remain intact. The passport of the applicant shall be returned to the applicant within period of three days from the date of production of certified copy of this order. The modification application is allowed."

6. A perusal of the aforesaid order shows that the modification application alongwith delay condonation application was listed before this Court in the cause list. At the time of grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant, opposite party no.2 was represented by counsel. Even in the revised cause list, no one turned up to oppose this modification application.

7. Opposite party no.2 appearing in person has stated that the learned counsel, who represented her, when the anticipatory bail was granted to the applicant on 17.2.2021, had no instructions on her behalf to appear in this case, when modification application was heard and decided. He was engaged only to argue Anticipatory Bail Application No.9565 of 2020.

8. This Court finds that when the case was taken up, earlier counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2, Sri Aishwaraya Pratap Singh, did not appeared and informed the Court that instructions have been withdrawn from him by opposite party no.2 and notices may be issued to opposite party no.2 to answer the modification application. Therefore, this Court proceeded with hearing of modification application and passed the order dated 7.3.2025 giving reasons for the same. There is nothing in the recall application, except the allegations that applicant did not deposited his passport within the time provided by this Court, which may persuade this Court to recall the order dated 7.3.2025.

9. Apex Court had held that right to travel according to law is in accordance with Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

10. Apex Court in the case of Satwant Singh Sawhney Vs. D. Ramarathnam, Asstt. Passport Officer (1967) 3 SCR 525 in para 31, held as under: "31. For the reasons mentioned above, we would accept the view of Kerala, Bombay and Mysore High Courts in preference to that expressed by the Delhi High Court. It follows that under Article 21 of the Constitution no person can be deprived of his right to travel except according to procedure established by law. It is not disputed that no law was made by the State regulating or depriving persons of such a right."

11. Similar view was reiterated in the decision rendered by 7-Judge Bench of Apex Court in Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India and another (1978) 1 SCC 248 wherein at page 280, it was held as under: ".....Now, it has been held by this Court in Satwant Singh's case (supra) that 'personal liberty' within the meaning of Article 21 includes within its ambit the right to go abroad and consequently no person can be deprived of this right except according to procedure prescribed by law. Prior to the enactment of the Passports Act, 1967, there was no law regulating the right of a person to go abroad and that was the reason why the order of the Passport Officer refusing to issue passport to the petitioner in Satwant Singh's case (supra) was struck down as invalid. It will be seen at once from the language of Article 21 that the protection it secures is a limited one.It safeguards the right to go abroad against executive interference which is not supported by law; and law here means 'enacted law' or' State law' (Vide A.K. Gopalan's case). 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.."

12. Recall applicant-opposite party no.2 has not pointed out any law which may prohibit travel of applicant abroad.

13. In view of the above consideration, no ground has been made for recall of the order dated 7.3.2025. The recall application is misconceived and is hereby rejected."

9. Thereafter, the present applicant filed Recall Application No. 07 of 2025. That has been disposed of by order dated 28.4.2025. After taking note of the earlier orders dated 07.03.2025 and 26.03.2025, the learned single judge has made the following pertinent observations: "After hearing the rival contentions, this court finds that when the order dated 26.3.2025 was passed by this court, a counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the applicant to the recall application but later it has been found that it was not sworn before the oath commissioner.Counter affidavit aforesaid was filed in the court and was relied by this court while passing the order dated 26.3.2025. When the above noted recall application was filed by the opposite party no.2, this Court realized that counter affidavit filed on 26.3.3025 on behalf of the applicant to the recall application no. 5 of 2025 was not duly sworn before oath commissioner. Today Shri Ramesh Upadhyay, learned Senior counsel for the applicant has submitted that he had filed duly sworn counter affidavit before this court and not the unsworn counter affidavit on record. He has submitted that inquiry should be ordered against office of this court in this regard.He has filed another short counter affidavit today, which has been duly sworn before oath commissioner on 12.4.2025. He has also filed reply to the above noted recall application, which is being taken on record. This court finds that one counter affidavit was filed by the learned counsel for the applicant in court on 26.3.2025. It is not sworn before oath commissioner.The same is on record. It contains marking at places made by the court and therefore, the submission of learned Senior Counsel for the applicant that he filed duly sworn copy of the counter affidavit on 26.3.2025 is not correct. Once it is found that only the unsworn counter affidavit is on record there is no reason why inquiry should be ordered against the office. This court finds that apart from the grounds for recall mentioned in the recall application filed by the opposite party no.2 noted above , filing of the unsworn counter affidavit on behalf of the applicant is also a ground for recall of the orders of this court dated 7.3.2025 and 26.3.2025. The orders aforesaid are hereby recalled.The applicant is directed to deposit his passport before the trial court within a period of one week and not to leave the country without order from this Court. This court is of the view that conduct of learned Senior Counsel for applicant of making allegations against the court and office of this court are very unbecoming of a Senior Counsel.The court restrains itself from making any further observation against the Senior Counsel for the applicant and is not inclined to hear this case anymore. The case is released. Hence put up this case before Hon'ble The Chief Justice for nominating this case to some other Bench."

10. Thus, the undoubtable situation emerges that the learned single judge has recalled the orders dated 07.03.2025 and 26.03.2025. Consequently, Modification Application No. 2 of 2024 filed alongwith Delay Condonation Application No. 3 of 2024, filed by the non-applicant Arpan Saxena and the Recall Application No. 5 of 2025, filed by the present applicant, have become pending, before the learned single judge.

11. In view of such status of those/main proceedings, the basis disclosed in the instant Contempt Application remains in the realm of disputed facts awaiting consideration by the learned single judge. All issues being raised and pressed may engage the attention of the learned single judge, at his discretion and to the extent warranted.

12. The judicial precedents would also remain (if at all required), to be considered by the learned single judge.

13. In matters of criminal contempt, the contempt Court may not pre-empt the exercise of judicial powers by the Court before whom the matter may be pending on merit issues.

14. In view of such fact, the present application is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 16.5.2025 Abhilash (Sandeep Jain, J.) (S. D. Singh, J.) ABHILASH SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad