Court grants modification of travel order for NRI petitioner with business interests abroad

The court allowed the petitioner's request to modify the order requiring permission for each visit abroad. Considering the petitioner's status as an NRI with business interests in Dubai and the practical difficulties caused by the existing condition, the court directed the trial court to promptly decide on the petitioner's pending application and grant permission for travel within a specified timeframe. The court emphasized the importance of balancing the petitioner's need to travel for business and family reasons with ensuring that trial proceedings were not disrupted.

---

---

Issues:
1. Modification of order dated 24.4.2015 passed by Sessions Judge No.2, Jaipur Metropolitan regarding obtaining permission to visit abroad.
2. Consideration of the petitioner's status as an NRI and his business interests in Dubai.
3. Analysis of previous court judgments allowing accused persons to go abroad with certain conditions.
4. Balancing the need for the accused to travel for business and family reasons with the trial court's requirements.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, an accused in a criminal case, sought modification of the order requiring permission for each visit abroad. The petitioner's counsel argued that the petitioner, an NRI with business interests in Dubai, needed to travel for business and family reasons. The impugned order had remanded the matter back with the condition of seeking permission from the Magistrate for each visit, causing practical difficulties due to the time involved.

2. The petitioner's counsel highlighted the petitioner's qualifications and business in Dubai, emphasizing the necessity of his presence there for various business matters. The petitioner's trade license in Dubai was expiring soon, and his sponsor had communicated the need for his full-time presence in Dubai to manage company affairs, including visa renewals and trade license renewal. The petitioner's family, consisting of his wife and three children, also resided in Dubai, further justifying his need to travel there.

3. The petitioner's counsel cited previous court judgments where accused persons were allowed to travel abroad under specific conditions. Cases such as Ravikant S. Patil v/s Sarvabhouma S. Bagali, Salman Khan v/s State of Rajasthan, and others were referenced to support the argument that the petitioner should be permitted to travel to Dubai for business and family reasons, similar to conditions imposed in those cases.

4. The court considered the petitioner's business interests in UAE and the potential adverse effects on his business and family if travel permission was denied. In light of the circumstances, the court allowed the petition, directing the trial court to decide on the petitioner's pending application promptly and grant permission for travel within a specified timeframe. The court emphasized the importance of balancing the petitioner's need to travel with ensuring that trial proceedings were not disrupted.

---