Prawal Tak versus State of Himachal Pradesh CrMP No. 4933 of 2025 in CrMP (M) No. 1259 of 2025 19.11.2025 Present: Mr. Parav Sharma and Ms. Vishali Lakhanpal, Advocates, for the applicant. Mr. Tejasvi Sharma, Additional Advocate General, with Ms. Ranjna Patial, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent-State. By way of the present application, filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’), indulgence of this Court has been sought to permit the applicant to visit abroad, i.e. Dubai, for 60 days, in relaxation to the conditions imposed, by this Court, while deciding CrMP (M) No. 1259 of 2025, on 8th August, 2025. 2. Vide order, dated 8th August, 2025, the application, filed by the applicant, under Section 482 of the BNSS, bearing CrMP (M) No. 1259 of 2025, was allowed, by this Court and the following conditions were imposed, on the applicant: a) That the applicant will join the investigation of the case, as and when, called for, by the Investigating Officer, in accordance with law; b) That the applicant will not leave India, without prior permission of the Court; c) That the applicant will 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/her from disclosing such facts to the Investigating Officer or the Court; and d) That the applicant shall regularly attend the trial Court on each and every date of hearing and if prevented by any reason to do so seek exemption from appearance by filing appropriate application.” 3. Now, by way of the present application, condition No. (b), as contained in order, dated 8th August, 2025 (supra), has been sought to be relaxed, for the limited period of sixty days, in order to undertake a visit to abroad, i.e. Dubai, for the purpose of renewal of his Emirates ID, which is due to expire on 21st November, 2025 and also, to renew the commercial license of the Company, owned and managed by him, i.e. PSP International LLC, which is also due to expire on 16th December, 2025. 4. As such, a prayer has been made to allow the application. 5. The respondent-State has filed reply to the application, by opposing the prayer, so made in the application. 6. Heard. 7. In Msr. Maneka Gandhi versus Union of India and another, reported in (1978) 1 Supreme Court Cases 248, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that no person can be deprived of his right to go abroad, unless, there is a law enabling the State prescribing the procedure for so depriving him. Relevant portion of para- 5 of the said judgment, reads as under: “5. ……...Thus, no person can be deprived of his right to go abroad unless there is a law made by the State prescribing the procedure for so depriving him and the deprivation is effected strictly in accordance with such procedure. It was for this reason, in order to comply with the requirement of Article 21, that Parliament enacted the Passports Act, 1967 for regulating the right to go abroad. It is clear from the provisions of the Passports Act, 1967 that it lays down the circumstances under which a passport may be issued or refused or cancelled or impounded and also prescribes a procedure for doing so, but the question is whether that is sufficient enough or must the procedure comply with any particular requirements? Obviously, the procedure cannot be arbitrary, unfair or unreasonable. This indeed was conceded by the learned Attorney General who with his usual candour frankly stated that it was not possible for him to contend that any procedure howsoever arbitrary, oppressive or unjust may be prescribed by the law. …..” 8. Right to travel abroad has been held to be basic human right, by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Satish Chandra Verma versus Union of India, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 2048. Relevant para-5 of the said judgment, is reproduced, as under: “5. The right to travel abroad is an important basic human right for it nourishes independent and self-determining creative character of the individual, not only by extending his freedoms of action, but also by extending the scope of his experience. The right also extends to private life; marriage, family and friendship are humanities which can be rarely affected through refusal of freedom to go abroad and clearly show that this freedom is a genuine human right.” 9. Similar view has again been taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Parvez Noordin Lokhandwalia versus State of Maharashtra, (2020) 10 Supreme Court Cases 77. 10. If, the facts and circumstances of the present case, are seen in the light of the aforesaid decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, then, in the considered opinion of this Court, the applicant is able to make out a case, in his favour. 11. Consequently, the application under consideration is allowed and the applicant is permitted to visit Dubai, with effect from 19th November, 2025, to 19th December, 2025, subject to the following conditions: (i) That the applicant shall furnish bail bonds, in the sum of ₹ 8,00,000/-, with two sureties of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalagarh, by giving a solemn undertaking to return to the country and report to the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalagarh, on 20th December, 2025, at 10.00 a.m. (ii) That the applicant shall not visit any other place, except, for which, the permission has been granted. 12. It goes without saying that the applicant shall abide by all the other conditions, imposed by this Court, while deciding CrMP (M) No. 1259 of 2025, vide order, dated 8th August, 2025. 13. The application is disposed of, in above terms. ( Virender Singh ) Judge November 19, 2025 ( rajni )