____________________ Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MMO No. 489 of 2025 Reserved on: 06.06.2025 Date of Decision: 16.06.2025 Rajinder Rana …. Petitioner Versus State of H.P. ...Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the Petitioner : Mr. Vikrant Thakur, Advocate, For Respondent/State : Mr. Jitender K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General with SI Vijay Pal Singh I/O Police Station, West Shimla, H.P. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition to seek permission to go abroad. It has been asserted that the petitioner and applied for pre-arrest bail in F.I.R. No. 40 of 2024, dated 10.3.2024, registered at Police Station Boileaugan, District Shimla, H.P for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 2 171A, 171C and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 7 and 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act). This petition was allowed vide order dated 27.09.2024. The Court imposed a condition that the petitioner would not leave the territory of India without prior the permission of the Court. The petitioner intends to visit Switzerland for 11 days w.e.f. 18.06.2025 to 29.06.2025 to spend quality time with his family members. The petitioner would be available on his mobile number through WhatsApp and on the emailID mentioned in the petition. Hence, the present petition. 2. A status report has been filed reproducing the contents of the F.I.R. It was asserted that the mobile phone of Peeyush Verma has been sent to SFSL Junga for analysis, and the result is still awaited. The petitioner had earlier visited the United Kingdom w.e.f. 10.09.2024 to 16.09.2024 and Malaysia w.e.f.03.02.2025 till 10.02.2025. He had returned. The local police had no objection in case the petitioner is permitted to visit abroad, provided he joins the investigation and returns on time. 3 3. I have heard Mr. Vikrant Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jitender K. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State. 4. Mr. Vikrant Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner intends to visit Switzerland to spend quality time with his family members. He would be available on his WhatsApp and email ID. He would respond to any message from the Investigating Officer, and the investigation would not be affected by the petitioner's visit to Switzerland. The right to travel abroad is a fundamental right. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and petitioner be permitted to travel abroad. He relied upon following judgments and order in support of his submission:  Satish Chander Verma vs. Union of India & others 2019 SCC OnLine SC 2048.  Parvez Noordin Lokhandwalla vs. State of Maharashtra and another 2020 10 Supreme Court Cases 77  Barun Chandra Thakur vs. Ryan Augustine Pinto and another 2019 SCC OnLine SC1899  N.S. Sindhu vs. CBI 2024 SCC OnLine HP4220 4  Mehul Sukumaran vs. Central Bureau of Investigation 2025:HHC 16614  Rajinder Rana vs. Stated of H.P. in Cr.MMO No. 67 of 2025 in Cr.MP No. 362 of 2025 decided on 31.01.2025 5. Mr. Jitender K. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State,submitted that the petitioner does not have any unqualified right to travel abroad. The petitioner does not have any reason to travel abroad, as he can spend quality time with his family in India as well. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 6. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 7. It was laid down by the Allahabad High Court in Aditya Murti vs. Central Bureau of Investigation/Anti-Corruption Bureau Lko (01.05.2025 - ALLHC): MANU/UP/0891/2025, that an accused person, who has been enlarged on bail, can be granted permission to travel abroad for pressing necessity like medical treatment, attending essential duties and the like, and he cannot 5 seek permission for attending the marriage of his relative or a pleasure trip to another country. It was observed: “18. An accused person who has been enlarged on bail can be granted permission to travel abroad for some pressing necessity like medical treatment, attending essential official duties and the like. An accused person who has been enlarged on bail cannot seek permission as of right to travel to another country merely for attending the marriage of a relative and having a pleasure trip to another country. The wedding of a relative in a foreign country and a pleasure trip to another country are not at all essential purposes for an undertrial accused person's visit abroad. 19. Merely because the trial Court had earlier granted permission to the applicant to travel abroad for nonessential objects on numerous occasions, he does not get the right to travel abroad for nonessential objects this time also, when the trial has reached the stage of defence evidence. 20. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that this reason has not been assigned by the trial Court and the trial Court has merely rejected the application on the ground that since the trial has reached the stage of defence evidence, the applicant cannot be granted permission for travel abroad. 21. While exercising the inherent powers of this Court recognised by Section 528 BNSS, this Court's power is not confined to scrutiny of the reasons assigned by the trial court. Besides seeking quashing of the order passed by the trial Court, the applicant has requested this Court to pass an order granting him permission to travel abroad and, in these circumstances, this Court can certainly to look into the justification of the prayer made by the applicant so as to assess whether the permission sought can be granted to the applicant. 22. In Jitendra v. State of U.P., MANU/UP/2883/2022, this Court has held that a person who has been arrested and 6 released on bail subject to the conditions imposed by the Court, remains subject to the directions issued by the Court and he shall be deemed to be in constructive custody of the Court. Therefore, the applicant does not enjoy the full liberties of a free man, and reasonable restrictions can be imposed upon his freedom, including the restriction of his going out of the Country. 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also held in Parvez Noordin Lokhandwalla v. State of Maharashtra, (2020) 10 SCC 77: (2021) 1 SCC (Cri) 436: 2020 SCC OnLine SC 807 that the permission can be granted to travel abroad on the ground of medical necessity, to meet exigency in a family situation, employment or a part of a job requirement. It was observedon page 86: “20. This Court has passed multiple orders previously allowing an accused enlarged on bail to travel abroad. In Ganpati Ramnath v. State of Bihar [Ganpati Ramnath v. State of Bihar, 2017 SCC OnLine SC 1998], this Court allowed an accused applicant to travel abroad for medical treatment, modifying its earlier bail order, noting that the applicant had travelled abroad on the ground of medical necessity on six occasions with the permission of the court and had returned. In K. Mohammed v. State of Kerala [K. Mohammed v. State of Kerala, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 860, this Court allowed the appellant-accused to travel abroad to meet in the exigencies of a family situation. In Tarun Trikha v. State of W.B. [Tarun Trikha v. State of W.B., 2015 SCC OnLine SC 1879], this Court allowed the petitioner- accused to travel to Indonesia in connection with his employment and to return once the work was completed. In Pitam Pradhan v. State of A.P. [Pitam Pradhan v. State of 7 A.P., 2014 SCC OnLine SC 1795], this Court while granting anticipatory bail, permitted the petitioner to travel abroad noting that his job required him to travel abroad at frequent intervals and may lose his employment if he were not permitted to travel abroad. 9. In Barun Chandra Thakur v. Ryan Augustine Pinto, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1899, a petition was filed for waiving the condition to seek permission for travelling abroad. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that such a condition cannot be waived. It was observed: “9…There could be no gainsaying that the right to travel abroad is a valuable one and an integral part of the right to personal liberty. Equally, however, the pre-condition of securing prior permission before travelling abroad is a crucial ingredient which undoubtedly was engrafted as a condition for the grant of anticipatory bail in this case. Mere inconvenience in the matter of approaching the court, therefore-absent of any significant change of circumstances (i.e. framing of charges or no significant or serious material emerging during the trial, in the course of deposition of key witnesses, as to the role of the respondent), ought not to have led to dilution of the terms of the High Court's previous consistent orders. At best, the condition for seeking permission before travelling abroad could have been regulated, not deleted altogether.” 10. The judgment of Satish Chadra Verma (supra) does not deal with the case of an accused in a criminal case. 11. The judgment in N.S.Sidhu (supra) was delivered before the judgment of the Allahabad High Court and relies upon the 8 judgment of Satish Chandra Verma(supra), which does not deal with the case of an accused. 12. In Mehul Sukumaran (supra), the petitioner wanted to attend the Super AI Conference in Singapore, which was connected to his work. 13. In Rajinder Rana (supra), permission was granted to visit abroad to explore the educational avenues for post- graduation in the medical field for the petitioner’s daughter. 14. In the present case, the petitioner intends to visit abroad simply to spend quality time with his family, which is a euphemism for a pleasure trip. There is nothing in the petition as to why the quality time cannot be spent in India. 15. However, in the present case, the police stated that they have no objection in case the petitioner is permitted to travel abroad. Therefore, the permission to travel abroad can be granted on the concession made by the police. 16. In view of the status report, the permission is granted to the petitioner to travel abroad w.e.f 18.06.2025 till 29.06.2025. subject to his furnishing personal and surety bonds in the sum of 9 ₹1,00,000/- to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court/learned Additional Registrar (Judicial) of this Court with an undertaking to return to India after completion of the journey on or before 01.07.2025. The petitioner is also directed to furnish the details with regard to his flight, boarding and lodging to the concerned Police Station within two days from today. He shall also report to the concerned police station after his return on 01.07.2025. . 17. In the aforesaid terms, the present petition stands disposed of, and so are the miscellaneous applications, if any. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 16th June, 2025 (ravinder)