2004 (8) TMI 756 - HC - Indian Laws

Court Allows Travel Abroad for Business Amid Criminal Charges with Conditions

Arun Kapoor Versus State of Haryana

The court granted permission for Arun Kapur and Akshay Kapur to go abroad for business purposes, despite facing criminal charges, subject to specific ... - Issues:Release of passport for business purposes; False implication in criminal cases; Apprehension of absconding if allowed to go abroad; Delay in trial proceedings; Legal provisions for granting permission to go abroad.Analysis:The judgment deals with two criminal miscellaneous petitions filed by Arun Kapur and Akshay Kapur seeking the release of their passports deposited in pursuance of court orders to go abroad for business purposes. The petitions were in response to FIRs registered against them for various offenses under the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners contended that they were falsely implicated due to family disputes related to their business interests in a Public Ltd. Company. The State opposed the petitions, arguing that the petitioners might abscond if allowed to go abroad, leading to delays in the trial proceedings. The State suggested that other executives of the company could handle overseas business, preventing any loss or injury to the company.The court considered previous judgments, including one by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, where accused individuals were allowed to go abroad subject to certain conditions. The court noted that the petitioners had previously complied with court orders to deposit their passports upon return from abroad. It emphasized the importance of business commitments that required overseas travel and the necessity of procuring contracts from abroad. The court cited legal precedents where accused individuals were permitted to go abroad on furnishing adequate sureties and security.In its decision, the court balanced the business needs of the petitioners with the concerns raised by the State. It granted permission for the petitioners to go abroad subject to specific conditions, including executing personal bonds, providing sureties, and undertaking to return for trial. The court exempted the petitioners from personal appearance during their absence and allowed them to appear through their counsel. The judgment emphasized the importance of ensuring the petitioners' return and continued compliance with bail conditions upon their return.Overall, the court allowed the petitions, considering the business requirements of the petitioners and the legal provisions for granting permission to go abroad. The judgment provided a detailed framework of conditions to ensure the petitioners' accountability and compliance with the court's directives. After the specified period of travel, the petitioners were directed to approach the trial Magistrate for further permission to go abroad, subject to legal considerations.