High Court grants businessman's request to travel abroad for business amid criminal case, imposes conditions

The High Court allowed the petition seeking to quash the trial Court's order denying permission to travel abroad in connection with a criminal case. Citing a previous case where similar relief was granted, the High Court permitted the petitioner, a businessman engaged in import-export activities, to travel abroad for business purposes. The Court imposed conditions, including a deposit and an undertaking for timely return, emphasizing the petitioner's compliance history. Failure to adhere to the conditions would lead to forfeiture of the deposited amount.

---

---

Issues:
1. Quashing of the order declining permission to travel abroad by the trial Court in FIR No.664 dated 19.10.2016.
2. Comparison with a similar case where permission was granted.
3. Arguments of the petitioner's counsel regarding the necessity of travel for business purposes.
4. Opposition by the State's counsel.
5. Judgment allowing the petition, setting aside the trial Court's order, and granting permission to travel abroad subject to conditions.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought to quash the order dated 10.04.2018 by the trial Court, which had denied permission to visit abroad from 19.04.2018 to 15.05.2018 in connection with FIR No.664 dated 19.10.2016 under Sections 406, 420, 506, 34 IPC. The High Court intervened in response to the petition.

2. The petitioner's counsel referenced another case (CRM-M No.23531 of 2017) where the petitioner had been granted anticipatory bail and permission to travel abroad in a similar situation. The High Court had previously allowed the petitioner to travel abroad, emphasizing the petitioner's compliance with the conditions and return within the stipulated time.

3. The petitioner's counsel argued that the petitioner, a businessman engaged in import and export activities, required frequent international travel for business purposes. It was highlighted that the petitioner had never misused the concession of traveling abroad, had family and property in India, and had always abided by the legal procedures.

4. The State's counsel opposed the petitioner's submissions, indicating a disagreement with the petitioner's assertions and the necessity of granting permission to travel abroad given the ongoing investigation and the likelihood of presenting a challan.

5. After considering the arguments from both sides, the High Court deemed it appropriate to allow the petition. The Court set aside the trial Court's order, granting the petitioner permission to travel abroad from 21.04.2018 to 15.05.2018 upon depositing a sum of Rs. 2,00,000 with the trial Court. Additionally, the petitioner was required to provide an undertaking ensuring timely return to India or appearance before the trial Court; failure to comply would result in the forfeiture of the deposited amount to the State. The judgment disposed of the present petition in alignment with the previous order dated 18.04.2018, emphasizing the petitioner's past compliance and the conditions imposed for the current travel permission.

---