Travel abroad permission in pending criminal case may be allowed with safeguards to protect return and civil liberty.

The Punjab and Haryana HC addressed whether refusal of permission to travel abroad was justified where a criminal case was pending. It applied the presumption of innocence and the principle that normal civil liberty should not be curtailed merely because criminal proceedings are pending. On the facts, the Court found the refusal unjustified, noting that the proposed foreign visit was for a short period for official work and could be balanced with safeguards. Permission to travel abroad was therefore granted subject to furnishing security and surety and returning on the specified date.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order refusing permission to the petitioner to travel abroad deserved to be set aside and whether permission to travel abroad could be granted subject to security and undertaking.

Analysis: The petitioner's request was considered in the context of the presumption of innocence and the principle that a person cannot be deprived of a normal civil liberty merely because a criminal case is pending. The Court found that the refusal to permit travel was not justified on the facts and circumstances, and that the petitioner's proposed foreign visit for a short duration for official work could be allowed with adequate safeguards to ensure his return.

Conclusion: The refusal order was set aside and permission to go abroad was granted subject to furnishing security and surety and returning on the specified date.

---