Ayush Soni versus State of H.P. CrMP No. 4494 of 2025 in CrMP (M) No. 1007 of 2025 16.12.2025 Present: Mr. Arsh Chauhan, Advocate, for the applicant. Mr. H.S. Rawat and Mr. Mohinder Zharaick, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Rohit Sharma, 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 travel outside India, for his assignment, in Merchant Navy, in relaxation to the conditions imposed, by this Court, while deciding CrMP (M) No. 1007 of 2025, on 15th May, 2025. 2. Today, learned counsel appearing for the applicant has furnished a certificate, dated 12th December, 2025, issued by the employer of the applicant, certifying that the applicant is an employee of their organization and he will be joining their principals’ vessel IRELAND as an Assistant Engineer Officer on or around 1st February, 2026 and will be sailing for four months (+- 1 month) on the said vessel. The said document is ordered to be taken on record. -: 2 :- 3. Vide order, dated 15th May, 2025, the application, filed by the applicant, under Section 483 of the BNSS, bearing CrMP (M) No. 1007 of 2025, was allowed, by this Court and the following conditions were imposed, on the applicant: a) Applicant shall appear before the I.O., as and when directed by the I.O. to do so and 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; b) Applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor hamper the investigation of the case in any manner whatsoever; c) Applicant shall not make any inducement, threat or promises to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or the Police Officer; and d) Applicant shall not leave the territory of India without the prior permission of the Court. 4. Now, by way of the present application, condition No. (d), as contained in order, dated 15th May, 2025 (supra), has been sought to be relaxed, for the limited period, as aforementioned, in order to undertake his assignment in Merchant Navy. 5. As such, a prayer has been made to allow the application. 6. The respondent-State has filed reply to the -: 3 :- application, and the prayer, so made in the application, has been opposed, mainly on the ground that the investigation and trial, under the NDPS Act, are of serious nature and require continuous availability of the accused for proceedings, identification and examination purposes and permitting the applicant to leave India may cause unnecessary delay, hamper the trial process and prejudice the prosecution case. 7. Heard. 8. In 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 -: 4 :- 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. …..” 9. 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.” 10. 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. 11. On account of the registration of the FIR, against the applicant, he cannot be compelled to remain idle during the pendency of the trial. Moreover, an idle mind is devil’s workshop and to earn his livelihood is the right of the applicant, however, said right can be given to the applicant, by imposing certain conditions. -: 5 :- 12. 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. 13. Consequently, the application under consideration is allowed and the applicant is permitted to travel outside India, for his assignment, in Merchant Navy, on and with effect from 20th January, 2026 to 20th June, 2026, subject to the following conditions: (i) That the applicant shall furnish bail bonds, in the sum of ₹ 8,00,000/-, with one surety of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, by giving a solemn undertaking to return to the country and report to the learned trial Court on 25th June, 2026, at 10.00 a.m. (ii) That the applicant shall not visit any other place, except, for which, the permission has been granted. 14. It goes without saying that the applicant shall abide by all the other conditions, imposed by this Court, while deciding CrMP (M) No. 1007 of 2025, vide order, dated 15th May, 2025. 15. It is clarified that the applicant shall not raise the question of identity, during the course of recording evidence and will appear before the learned trial Court, through his counsel, as and when, directed, by the Court, -: 6 :- to do so. 16. The application is disposed of, in above terms. ( Virender Singh ) Judge December 16, 2025 ( rajni )