[2025:RJ-JP:17589] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2480/2025 Purushottam Lal Soni S/o Shri Guljari Lal, Aged About 66 Years, R/o 44/17, East Patel Nagar, Central Delhi, Delhi. ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan, Through P.P. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sandeep Bansiwal Mr. Shubham Garg For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh Shekhawat, PP Mr. Rishi Raj Singh Rathore, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Judgment 25/04/2025 1. Present petition is filed under Section 528 BNSS against the order dated 22.04.2025 passed by Metropolitan Magistrate No.6, Jaipur Metropolitan-I, Jaipur in furtherance to the FIR No.109/2021 dated 15.03.2021 registered at Police Station Shyam Nagar, Jaipur (South) for the offences 406, 420 and 120B of IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon order dated 17.01.2024 passed in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.14720/2023 and has submitted that there are no specific allegations against the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner had never entered into any agreement with the complainant and it was only the developer who was a party to the agreement. Therefore, it can be deduced that the petitioner herein is not even party to the dispute. [2025:RJ-JP:17589] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-2480/2025] 3. It is further submitted that in favour of the petitioner an interim protection was passed and subsequently the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court has granted an anticipatory bail qua him, however, the same is subjected to certain conditions wherein, one of the condition that the petitioner in order to leave the territory of India has to seek prior permission from the Court. 4. Further it is apprised to the Court that the petitioner is a practicing Chartered Accountant and is also a member of Rotary Club which is an international organization. 5. It is further submitted that an application is filed by the petitioner seeking permission to go abroad from 01.05.2025 to 10.05.2025. The learned trial Court, on account of the fact that investigation will be effected had rejected the same however, the said order is invalid as the same is vague and no specific rationale or dates is specified therein. 6. Considering the matter in toto and taking note of the fact that it is a fundamental right of the petitioner to move freely as per the provisions of Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India; that the learned trial Court has abstained itself from enumerating any categorical rationale as to why the petitioner should not be allowed to leave the country, the present petition is allowed. 7. Accordingly, the order dated 22.04.2025 whereby the plea of the petitioner to travel abroad from 01.05.2025 to 10.05.2025 for a business meet was dismissed is hereby quashed and set aside. It is made clear that the petitioner shall comply with the following conditions: [2025:RJ-JP:17589] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-2480/2025] 7.1 That the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by the Police Officer as and when required. 7.2 That the petitioner shall not create any impediment in the ongoing investigation, shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any other judicial body. 8. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. (SAMEER JAIN),J JKP/s-305