TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>High Court Grants Petitioner Travel Abroad: Presumption of Innocence Upheld</h1> <h3>Naginder Singh Rana Versus State of Punjab</h3> The High Court allowed the petitioner to travel abroad, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and the right to travel for personal reasons. The court ... - Issues:1. Permission to go abroad declined by Additional Sessions Judge2. Grounds for declining permission to go abroad3. Consideration of facts and circumstances in the caseAnalysis:1. The petitioner sought to quash the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, declining permission to go to the USA for a month. The petitioner argued that he was falsely implicated in a corruption case and had substantial assets and family ties in India and should be allowed to visit his daughter and newly born grandchild in the USA.2. The Additional Sessions Judge denied permission based on concerns that the petitioner might not return to India, despite being on bail. The State had filed an application for bail cancellation, but no adverse order had been issued. The court highlighted the presumption of innocence until proven guilty and the right of an individual to travel abroad to see family members, emphasizing that mere pendency of a case is not sufficient grounds to deny such permission.3. The High Court found that the reasons cited by the Special Judge for denying permission were not valid. The court emphasized that steps should be taken to ensure the petitioner's return, rather than outright denial of permission. The court set aside the impugned order and permitted the petitioner to go abroad for a month, subject to providing an undertaking to return for trial and furnishing adequate security to ensure compliance with court proceedings.In conclusion, the High Court allowed the petitioner to travel abroad, highlighting the importance of balancing individual rights with the need to ensure compliance with legal proceedings. The judgment emphasized the presumption of innocence and the right to travel for personal reasons, subject to appropriate safeguards to guarantee the petitioner's presence for trial proceedings.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
