Interim Order 5

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 1
IN THE COURT OF SH. KANWAL JEET ARORA
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE-CUM-SPECIAL
JUDGE (PC ACT) (CBI), ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURT,
NEW DELHI.
IA-17/2025
CBI No. 36/2025
Harvinder Singh Vs. CBI
RC0482024S0008
Appearance: Applicant/accused Harvinder Singh present
on bail.
Sh. Kaushal Jeet Kait, Sh.Daksh Gupta and
Sh. Gaurav Dua, Ld. Counsels for the
applicant/accused.
Sh. Prashant Kumar and Sh. A.K. Kushwaha,
Ld. Sr. PPs for CBI.
28.05.2025
ORDER
1. Vide this order, I shall dispose off an application filed on
behalf of applicant Harvinder Singh seeking permission to travel
to Bangkok Thailand from 18.06.2025 to 29.06.2025.
2. Notice of the present application was given to the CBI on
whose behalf reply has been filed and copy of the same is
supplied to the Ld. Counsel for the applicant.
3. I have heard the submissions advanced on behalf of the
applicant as well as on behalf of the CBI.
Harvinder Singh vs. CBI Page no.1 of 5
IA-17/2025
-- 1 of 5 --
2
4. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the applicant Harvinder
Singh that he wishes to travel outside India from 18.06.2025 to
29.06.2025 for a leisure trip. It is further submitted that right to
travel abroad has been considred as integral part of life and
personal liberty of an individual. Counsel for the applicant, in
order to support his submission has relied upon the law laid down
by Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India
(1978) AIR 1978 SC 597.
5. Ld. Senior Public Prosecutor appearing for CBI had
submitted that though right to travel abroad is integral part of life
and liberty but it cannot be considered as unfettered right and
should come with reasonable restrictions. It is contended by Ld.
Senior Public Prosecutor that the Ministry of External Affairs
issued GSR 570 (E) dated 25.08.1993, in order to give relief to
such applicants against whom criminal proceedings are pending
before any Court of Law in India but who need to travel abroad
has laid down guidelines for the same, however, the
accused/applicant has not provided the grounds for traveling
abroad. It is further contended by Ld. Senior Public Prosecutor
that the accused/applicant is not entitled to be granted
permission to travel abroad and that the instant application is
liable to be rejected as there is likelihood that the
accused/applicant would flee and not return to India to face trial.
Harvinder Singh vs. CBI Page no.2 of 5
IA-17/2025
-- 2 of 5 --
3
6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival
submissions and have also gone through the records including the
application, reply as well as the judgement relied upon.
7. In
Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248 it
was held that no fundamental right including right to travel
abroad can be impinged by the State action, without following
due process of law as the right to travel abroad is a fundamental
facet of personal liberty and is protected by Article 21 of
Constitution of India.
8. In the present case, it is apparent on perusal of the record
that the charge sheet in the present case was filed and cognizance
of offences under sections 105, 61 (2) of BNS, 2023 was taken
by Hon’ble High Court vide order dated 04.12.2024 and the
applicant was granted interim bail vide orders dated 13.09.2024.
Subsequently, the bail of the applicant was confirmed as regular
vide order dated 21.01.2025 of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi.
9. It is apparent from the reply filed by the prosecution as
well as from the record that after grant of bail to the applicant,
the applicant has never attempted to avoid joining the
investigation or had not cooperated with the investigations or had
tried to flee from the country. However, taking into consideration
the apprehension of the investigating agency of the accused
fleeing from justice, a balance needs to be drawn between the
Harvinder Singh vs. CBI Page no.3 of 5
IA-17/2025
-- 3 of 5 --
4
apprehension of CBI of applicant fleeing from justice viz-a-viz
right of applicant to travel abroad.
10. In view thereof permission is granted to applicant
Harvinder Singh to travel to Bangkok Thailand from 18.06.2025
to 29.06.2025 subject to following conditions:-
(i) That he shall furnish the itinerary of his visit to this
court.
(ii) That he will not try to influence the witnesses if any,
in the country that he is visiting,
(iii) Applicant shall not evade further investigation and
report his arrival to India to the IO as well as to this
Court immediately on his return i.e. within a period
of two days.
(iv) He shall not visit any other country during the said
period.
(v) He shall submit complete address of his stay/copy of
tickets along with the active mobile number in
Bangkok Thailand to the IO/HIO through Ld. PP,
before his departure.
(vi) He shall furnish additional FDR in the sum of Rs.10
lakhs in his name prior to his departure and shall
also furnish an NOC from his surety in the Court. It
is clarified that the same shall be forfeited to the
State in case any of the information furnished by the
Harvinder Singh vs. CBI Page no.4 of 5
IA-17/2025
-- 4 of 5 --
5
applicant is found to be incorrect as per verification,
if any, at the end of the CBI, any state.
(vii) In no eventuality, his request for extention for
staying abroad shall be entertained.
(viii) This permission shall be subject to any other
applicable rules and shall not be deemed as
directions to any authority except for showing the
permission from this court only.
(ix) He shall be represented through his counsel on all
dates of hearing during this period and the counsel
shall not seek adjournment on the ground of non-
availability of the applicant.
11. The application is accordingly disposed off.
12. Copy of this order be given
dasti to the applicant as well as
to the Senior PP for CBI.
(Kanwal Jeet Arora)
Principal District & Sessions Judge-cum-
Special Judge (PC Act) (CBI)
Rouse Avenue District Court
New Delhi/28.05.2025
Harvinder Singh vs. CBI Page no.5 of 5
IA-17/2025
-- 5 of 5 --