High Court Grants Petitioner Travel Abroad: Presumption of Innocence Upheld

The High Court allowed the petitioner to travel abroad, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and the right to travel for personal reasons. The court set aside the order denying permission, highlighting the importance of ensuring the petitioner's return for trial. The petitioner was permitted 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.

---

---

Issues:
1. Permission to go abroad declined by Additional Sessions Judge
2. Grounds for declining permission to go abroad
3. Consideration of facts and circumstances in the case

Analysis:
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.

---