DATE: 25/02/2025
BENCH: Justice Abhay Waghwase
FACTS:
The present application was filed in connection with Criminal Appeal No. 643 of 2016, wherein the judgment and order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, in Special Case No. 58 of 2007, convicting the applicant under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity Act, has been challenged. The applicant's appeal against the conviction has already been admitted, and the High Court has suspended his sentence and granted him bail. Given that the appeal has been pending since 2016 with no likelihood of being heard soon, the applicant sought permission to travel abroad for a religious pilgrimage from April 2025 to September 2025.
The applicant stated that undertaking the Haj pilgrimage is a compulsory religious obligation for him. He further submitted that his wife, brother, and sister-in-law, who had already been allotted slots by the Haj Committee, would be accompanying him. Since his appeal remains pending, he was required to seek court approval for international travel. Considering the religious nature of the request, the prolonged pendency of the appeal, and the absence of any immediate hearing, the court allowed his application, imposing conditions such as submitting an undertaking, providing travel details, and furnishing information about his properties to the concerned authorities before departure.
ISSUES:
The key issues before the court were whether the applicant, convicted under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity Act but out on bail with a pending appeal, could be permitted to travel abroad for a Haj pilgrimage. The court had to balance his religious rights with legal restrictions and assess the risk of absconding or misusing bail. Given the prolonged pendency of his appeal and his commitment to providing travel details and property information, the court considered granting permission with necessary safeguards.
JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:
The court granted the applicant permission to travel abroad for his Haj pilgrimage from April 2025 to September 2025, subject to certain conditions. He was required to submit an undertaking not to misuse the liberty, provide details of his travel itinerary, airline tickets, accommodation in Saudi Arabia, and furnish information about his properties to the concerned police station and the court before departure.
The court considered the fact that the applicant’s appeal had been pending since 2016, with no immediate prospect of being heard. Since his sentence had already been suspended and he was out on bail, there was no pressing legal reason to prevent his travel. Additionally, the applicant’s request was based on religious grounds, and the court recognized that performing Haj is a compulsory religious obligation in his faith.
Furthermore, the court ensured that safeguards were in place to prevent any misuse of the granted liberty. By requiring the applicant to provide detailed travel and property information, the court aimed to mitigate any concerns about absconding. Since the prosecution did not raise objections, and there were no compelling reasons to deny the request, the court found it reasonable to allow the applicant to undertake the pilgrimage.
ANALYIS:
The court’s decision reflects a balanced approach in considering both the applicant’s fundamental right to religious freedom and the necessity of legal oversight in cases involving convicted individuals with pending appeals. By granting permission for the Haj pilgrimage, the court acknowledged the significance of religious obligations while ensuring that judicial procedures were not compromised. The conditions imposed—such as requiring an undertaking, submission of travel details, and disclosure of property information—demonstrate the court’s intent to prevent potential misuse of bail and mitigate concerns regarding flight risk. This approach aligns with the principles of justice, where individual rights are upheld without undermining the legal process.
Moreover, the decision underscores the court’s recognition of the prolonged delay in hearing the appeal, which is a crucial factor in determining whether an applicant should be granted relief. Given that the appeal had been pending since 2016 with no immediate likelihood of resolution, the court deemed it unjust to restrict the applicant’s movement indefinitely. The absence of any objection from the prosecution further reinforced the fairness of the order. This ruling sets a precedent for similar cases, where courts must carefully evaluate the intersection of legal obligations and fundamental rights, ensuring that justice is served while maintaining procedural safeguards.
info@adhwaitha.com
