# Aditya Murti v. C.B.I./A.C.B. Lko. Opp. Party

- **Citation:** (2025) 5 ILRA 1000
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-05-01
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No. 3726 of 2025
- **Bench:** Subhash Vidyarthi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/aditya-murti-v-c-b-i-a-c-b-lko-opp-party-53282
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Anurag Kumar Singh

Applicant is an accused in an FIR lodged by CBInot based on any private complaint-Applicant is
seeking
permission
to
travel
abroad
for
attending the wedding ceremony of a relative in
USA and to enjoy a family pleasure trip in
France-. This purpose is not an essential
purpose like revalidation of a Green Card.
proceedings against the applicant have been
initiated by an FIR lodged by the Central Bureau
of Investigation and the trial Court has charged
him for commission of offences under Section
120-B read with Section 420 I.P.C. and Section
13(2) read with Section 13(1) (d) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act. The trial pending
since 2011 has now reached the stage of
defence evidence. At this stage, he wants to
travel abroad merely to attend the wedding
ceremony of a grand-son of his father's sister,
who is not his immediate family member. After
attending the wedding at San Diego, California,
USA, the applicant wants to have a family
pleasure trip to France. 18. An accused person
who has been enlarged on bail can be granted
permission to travel abroad for some pressing
necessity like medical Page 9 of 11 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. Wedding of a relative in a
foreign country and pleasure trip to another
country are not at all essential purposes for an
under-trial accused person's visit abroad. 19.
Merely, because the trial Court had earlier
granted permission to the applicant to travel
abroad for non-essential objects on numerous,
he does not get a 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 at the stage of
defence evidence, the applicant cannot be
granted permission for travel abroad. 21. While
exercising the inherent powers of this Court
recognized 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
5 All. Aditya Murti Vs. C.B.I./A.C.B. Lko.
1001
to the applicant. the trial Court has not
committed
any
illegality
in
rejecting
the
application seeking permission for the applicant
for his travel to the USA for attending the
marriage of a relative and to France to enjoy a
family pleasure trip, when the trial has reached
the stage of defence evidence. The applicant
does not have the right to travel to USA for
attending the marriage of his relative and to
France to enjoy a family pleasure trip when the
trial of the case filed by CBI, in which the
applicant is an accused, has reached the stage
of defence evidence. The application seeking
permission for the applicant's travel abroad as
well as the application under Section 528 BNSS
lack merits and are, accordingly, rejected. (E-9)

## Text

1000 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
to be set aside and the appeal is liable to be
allowed upholding the judgment passed by
the trial court, which has been passed in
accordance with law by a reasoned and
speaking order and does not suffer from
any illegality or perversity.

35.
The
Second
Appeal
is,
accordingly, allowed with costs. The
judgment and decree dated 05.10.2023
passed in Civil Appeal No.38/2009 (Shyam
Bihari and Others versus Sharda Prasad
(deceased) substituted by his legal heirs
Ambika Prasad and Others) by the
Additional
District
Judge/F.T.C.-
Ist,Sultanpur is hereby set aside and the
judgment and decree dated 26.05.2009
passed in Regular Suit No.225/2004(Sharda
Prasad versus Balkrishna and others) is
upheld.
----------
(2025) 5 ILRA 1000
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 01.05.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 3726 of 2025

Aditya Murti ...Applicant
Versus
C.B.I./A.C.B. Lko. ...Opp. Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Purnendu
Chakravarty,
Ambrish
Singh
Yadav, Amit Jaiswal Ojus Law, Pranjal Jain

Counsel for the Opp. Party:
Anurag Kumar Singh

Applicant is an accused in an FIR lodged by CBInot based on any private complaint-Applicant is
seeking
permission
to
travel
abroad
for
attending the wedding ceremony of a relative in
USA and to enjoy a family pleasure trip in
France-. This purpose is not an essential
purpose like revalidation of a Green Card.
proceedings against the applicant have been
initiated by an FIR lodged by the Central Bureau
of Investigation and the trial Court has charged
him for commission of offences under Section
120-B read with Section 420 I.P.C. and Section
13(2) read with Section 13(1) (d) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act. The trial pending
since 2011 has now reached the stage of
defence evidence. At this stage, he wants to
travel abroad merely to attend the wedding
ceremony of a grand-son of his father's sister,
who is not his immediate family member. After
attending the wedding at San Diego, California,
USA, the applicant wants to have a family
pleasure trip to France. 18. An accused person
who has been enlarged on bail can be granted
permission to travel abroad for some pressing
necessity like medical Page 9 of 11 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. Wedding of a relative in a
foreign country and pleasure trip to another
country are not at all essential purposes for an
under-trial accused person's visit abroad. 19.
Merely, because the trial Court had earlier
granted permission to the applicant to travel
abroad for non-essential objects on numerous,
he does not get a 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 at the stage of
defence evidence, the applicant cannot be
granted permission for travel abroad. 21. While
exercising the inherent powers of this Court
recognized 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
5 All. Aditya Murti Vs. C.B.I./A.C.B. Lko.
1001
to the applicant. the trial Court has not
committed
any
illegality
in
rejecting
the
application seeking permission for the applicant
for his travel to the USA for attending the
marriage of a relative and to France to enjoy a
family pleasure trip, when the trial has reached
the stage of defence evidence. The applicant
does not have the right to travel to USA for
attending the marriage of his relative and to
France to enjoy a family pleasure trip when the
trial of the case filed by CBI, in which the
applicant is an accused, has reached the stage
of defence evidence. The application seeking
permission for the applicant's travel abroad as
well as the application under Section 528 BNSS
lack merits and are, accordingly, rejected. (E-9)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

1. Heard Sri Purnendu Chakravarty,
the learned counsel for the applicant and
Sri Anurag Kumar Singh, learned counsel
for the C.B.I.

2. By means of the instant application
filed under Section 528 of Bhartiya Nagrik
Suraksha Sanhita (which will hereinafter be
referred to as 'BNSS'), the applicant has
challenged the validity of an order dated
24.04.2025 passed by the Special Judge,
CBI-5, Lucknow in Case No. 07/2012,
arising
out
of
F.I.R.
No.
RC0062010A0015, under Section 120-B
I.P.C. read with Sections 420, 468, 471 and
Section 13(1) (d)/13(2) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, P.S. CBI/ACB, District
Lucknow and has sought permission to
travel abroad to USA and France from
03.05.2025 to 22.05.2025 to attend the
wedding function of son of the applicant's
cousin and to enjoy a family pleasure trip.

3.
The
applicant
had
filed
an
application dated 03.02.2025 before the
trial Court seeking permission to go abroad
for the aforesaid period stating that he is a
Consultant in Sri Ram Murti Smarak
Institute of Medical Sciences run by SRMS
Trust, which is a public charitable Trust
established in the year 1990. Son of the
applicant's cousin (grand-son of sister of
the applicant's father) is an American
citizen residing at San Jose, USA, and he
has invited the applicant to attend his
wedding function at San Diego, California,
USA.

4. As per the invitation sent to the
applicant through e-mail, the wedding
celebrations
are
scheduled
between
03.05.2025 to 13.05.2025 at San Diego,
California, USA. After the wedding event,
the applicant and his family members have
planned a trip to Paris and Nice (France)
before returning to India. The travel tickets
of the applicant and his wife have already
been purchased.

5. The F.I.R. giving rise to the matter
was lodged in the year 2010. After
investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted
for offences under Section 120-B read with
Section 420 I.P.C. and Section 13(2) read
with Section 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act and the substantive offence
under Section 13(2) read with Section
13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, on 01.07.2011. The trial Court framed
charges against the applicant for the
offences under Section 120-B read with
Section 420 I.P.C. and Section 13(2) read
with Section 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act and no charge has been
framed against the applicant for the
substantive offence under Section 13(2)
read with Section 13(1) (d) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act. Statements
of 36 prosecution witnesses have already
been recorded and after recording of the
statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the
matter is fixed for defence evidence. The
trial Court has recorded the submission
1002 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
made on behalf of the applicant that the
applicant has travelled abroad on numerous
earlier occasions with permission of the
trial Court and he has not misused the
liberty on any occasion and he has
submitted that in his absence he will be
represented by his counsel and the trial will
not be delayed.

6. The trial Court has also recorded
that the present case is one of the oldest
matters and it is included amongst the cases
regarding which an action plan has been
made by the High Court for early disposal.
Progress of the case is being monitored by
the High Court as well as by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court. In these circumstances, in
case the applicant is granted permission to
travel abroad it might cause unwarranted
delay in the disposal of the matter. The trial
court
rejected
the
application
for
permission to travel for the aforesaid
reasons.

7. Sri. Purnendu Chakravarty, the
learned Counsel for the applicant has
submitted that applicant's father is a trustee
of S.R.M. Medical College and the
applicant is merely a Consultant in the
Medical College run by that Trust. The
applicant's father is not traveling abroad.
There is no possibility of the applicant not
coming back to face the trial. He further
submitted that the trial is continuing for the
past about one and half decades and the
absence of the applicant for merely 22 days
will not make a significant difference.

8. The learned Counsel for the
applicant has submitted that the applicant
has a Fundamental Right to travel abroad
and the denial of this Fundamental Right is
unsustainable in law. In support of this
submission he has relied upon the judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India
and another: (1978) 1 SCC 248.

9. Sri. Chakravarty has submitted that
the applicant had sought permission to
travel
abroad
on
numerous
earlier
occasions for similar purposes, like family
pleasure trips, and the permission was
always granted. The applicant has not
misused the liberty granted by the trial
court on any occasion and he has always
appeared to face the trial after coming back
to India after his travel abroad. He has
relied upon the judgment in the case of
Parvez Noordin Lokhandwalla Vs State
of Maharashtra and another: (2020) 10
SCC 77, in which the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has set aside the High Court's order
refusing permission to the appellant for
travelling abroad when he had already
travelled abroad on numerous earlier
occasions and had not misused the liberty
on any occasion.

10. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of
India: (1978) 1 SCC 248, was decided by a
Constitution Bench of seven Hon'ble
Judges of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Briefly stated, facts of the case were that
the petitioner held a passport issued to her
on 01.06.1976. On 04.07.1977 she received
a letter from the Regional Passport Officer,
Delhi intimating her that it had been
decided by the Government of India to
impound her passport under Section
10(3)(c) of the Passports Act, 1967 in
public interest and requiring her to
surrender the passport within seven days
from the date of receipt of the letter. The
petitioner immediately addressed a letter to
the Regional Passport Officer requesting
him to furnish a copy of the statement of
reasons for making the order as provided in
Section 10(5) to which a reply was sent by
the Government of India, Ministry of
5 All. Aditya Murti Vs. C.B.I./A.C.B. Lko.
1003
External Affairs on 06.07.1977 stating inter
alia that the Government had decided "in
the interest of the general public" not to
furnish her a copy of the statement of
reasons for the making of the order. The
petitioner thereupon filed a Writ Petition
before
the
Hon'ble
Supreme
Court
challenging the action of the Government
in impounding her passport and declining
to give reasons for doing so. The principal
challenge set out in the petition against the
legality of the action of the Government
was based mainly on the ground that
Section 10(3)(c), insofar as it empowers the
Passport Authority to impound a passport
"in the interests of the general public" is
violative of the equality clause contained in
Article 14 of the Constitution, since the
condition denoted by these words is vague
and undefined and the power conferred by
this provision is, therefore, excessive and
suffers from the vice of "over-breadth".
The petition also contained a challenge that
an
order
under
Section
10(3)(c)
impounding a passport could not be made
by the Passport Authority without giving an
opportunity to the holder of the passport to
be heard in defence. On 20.07.1977 an
interim order was made directing that the
passport of the petitioner should continue
to remain deposited with the Registrar of
the Court pending the hearing and final
disposal of the petition.

Hon'ble
P.N.
Bhagwati
J,
speaking for himself and N. L. Untwalia
and S. Murtaza Fazal Ali J held that: -

"19....It would thus be seen that
even if a right is not specifically named in
Article 19(1), it may still be a fundamental
right covered by some clause of that
article, if it is an integral part of a named
fundamental right or partakes of the same
basic nature and character as that
fundamental right. It is not enough that a
right claimed by the petitioner flows or
emanates from a named fundamental right
or that its existence is necessary in order to
make
the
exercise
of
the
named
fundamental right meaningful and effective.
Every
activity
which
facilitates
the
exercise of a named fundamental right is
not necessarily comprehended in that
fundamental right nor can it be regarded
as such merely because it may not be
possible otherwise to effectively exercise
that fundamental right. The contrary
construction would lead to incongruous
results and the entire scheme of Article
19(1) which confers different rights and
sanctions different restrictions according to
different standards depending upon the
nature of the right will be upset. What is
necessary to be seen is, and that is the test
which must be applied, whether the right
claimed by the petitioner is an integral part
of a named fundamental right or partakes
of the same basic nature and character as
the named fundamental right so that the
exercise of such right is in reality and
substance nothing but an instance of the
exercise of the named fundamental right. If
this be the correct test, as we apprehend it
is, the right to go abroad cannot in all
circumstances be regarded as included in
freedom of speech and expression. Mr
Justice Douglas said in Kent v. Dulles that
"Freedom of movement across frontiers in
either direction, and inside frontiers as
well, was a part of our heritage. Travel
abroad, like travel within the country, may
be necessary for livelihood. It may be as
close to the heart of the individual as the
choice of what he eats, or wears, or reads.
Freedom of movement is basic in our
scheme of values." And what the learned
Judge said in regard to freedom of
movement in his country holds good in our
country as well. Freedom of movement has
been a part of our ancient tradition which
1004 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
always upheld the dignity of man and saw
in him the embodiment of the Divine. The
Vedic seers knew no limitations either in
the locomotion of the human body or in the
flight of the soul to higher planes of
consciousness.
Even
in
the
postUpanishadic period, followed by the
Buddistic era and the early centuries after
Christ, the people of this country went to
foreign lands in pursuit of trade and
business or in search of knowledge or with
a view to shedding on others the light of
knowledge imparted to them by their
ancient sages and seers. India expanded
outside her borders : her ships crossed the
ocean and the fine superfluity of her wealth
brimmed over to the east as well as to the
west. Her cultural messengers and envoys
spread her arts and epics in South-East
Asia and her religions conquered China
and Japan and other far Eastern countries
and spread westward as far as Palestine
and Alexandria. Even at the end of the last
and the beginning of the present century,
our people sailed across the seas to settle
down in the African countries. Freedom of
movement at home and abroad is a part of
our heritage and, as already pointed out, it
is a highly cherished right essential to the
growth and development of the human
personality and its importance cannot be
over-emphasised. But it cannot be said to
be part of the right of free speech and
expression. It is not of the same basic
nature and character as freedom of speech
and expression. When a person goes
abroad, he may do so for a variety of
reasons and it may not necessarily and
always be for exercise of freedom of
speech and expression. Every travel
abroad is not an exercise of right of free
speech and expression and it would not be
correct to say that whenever there is a
restriction on the right to go abroad, ex
necessitae it involves violation of freedom
of speech and expression. It is no doubt
true that going abroad may be necessary in
a given case for exercise of freedom-of
speech and expression, but that does not
make it an integral part of the right of free
speech and expression. Every activity that
may be necessary for exercise of freedom of
speech and expression or that may
facilitate
such
exercise
or
make
it
meaningful and effective cannot be elevated
to the status of a fundamental right as if it
were part of the fundamental right of free
speech
and
expression.
Otherwise,
practically every activity would become
part of some fundamental right or the other
and the object of making certain rights only
as
fundamental
rights
with
different
permissible
restrictions
would
be
frustrated.
* * *

34. The right to go abroad
cannot, therefore, be regarded as included
in freedom of speech and expression
guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) on the
theory of peripheral or concomitant right.
This theory has been firmly rejected in
the All-India Bank Employees Association
case and we cannot countenance any
attempt to revive it, as that would
completely upset the scheme of Article
19(1) and to quote the words of Rajagopal
Ayyanger, J., speaking on behalf of the
Court
in All-India
Bank
Employees
Association case "by a series of everexpanding concentric circles in the shape
of rights concomitant to concomitant rights
and so on, lead to an almost grotesque
result". So also, for the same reasons, the
right to go abroad cannot be treated as
part of the right to carry on trade,
business, profession or calling guaranteed
under Article 19(1)(g). The right to go
abroad is clearly not a guaranteed right
under any clause of Article 19(1) and
Section
10(3)(c)
which
authorises
5 All. Aditya Murti Vs. C.B.I./A.C.B. Lko.
1005
imposition of restrictions on the right to go
abroad by impounding of passport cannot
be held to be void as offending Article
19(1)(a) or (g), as its direct and inevitable
impact is on the right to go abroad and not
on the right of free speech and expression
or the right to carry on trade, business,
profession or calling." (Emphasis added)

Hon'ble Y. V. Chandrachud J and
V. R. Krishna Iyer J concurred with the
aforesaid view expressed by Bhagwati J.
Thus, Maneka Gandhi (Supra) does not
hold that the right to travel abroad is a
Fundamental Right.

11. Interestingly, in Maneka Gandhi
(Supra), a statement was made on behalf of
the Government that the Government was
agreeable to considering any representation
that may be made by the petitioner in
respect of the impounding of her passport
and giving her an opportunity in the matter.
The opportunity will be given within two
weeks of the receipt of the representation.
In the event of the decision of impounding
the passport having confirmed, the duration
of the impounding will not exceed a period
of six months from the date of the decision
that may be taken on the petitioner's
representation.
Having
regard
to
the
aforesaid statement, the Supreme Court
held that it was unnecessary to interfere
with the impugned order and, accordingly,
the Writ Petition was disposed off without
passing any formal order, but it was
ordered that the passport will remain in the
custody of the Registrar of the Supreme
Court until further orders.

12.
Therefore,
Maneka
Gandhi
(Supra) does not lay down that a person
charged with commission of offences of
criminal conspiracy for cheating and
misconduct by a public servant, and who
has
been
enlarged
on
bail,
has
a
Fundamental Right to travel abroad for
attending the wedding of a relative in one
country and to enjoy a pleasure trip in
another country.

13. Parvez Noordin Lokhandwalla
(Supra) case had its genesis in a private
complaint which was filed alleging that the
appellant had fabricated a power of
attorney by forging the signature of his
brother. The Magistrate passed an order
directing an investigation under Section
156(3)
Cr.P.C.
Thereafter
a
first
information report was registered against
the appellant for the offences punishable
under Sections 420, 467, 468, 469, 470,
471 and 474 read with Section 34 I.P.C.
The appellant was an Indian citizen and
held an Indian passport. He had been
residing in the USA since 1985 and he held
a Green Card enabling him to reside in the
USA. The appellant arrived in India on
10.01.2020. He was arrested on 21.02.2020
in pursuance of a lookout notice issued on
the basis of the FIR. The High Court had
granted bail to the appellant subject to
certain conditions, including the condition
that he would surrender his passport and/or
Green Card with the investigating agency
and he would not leave jurisdiction of
Thane Police Commissionerate without
prior permission of the trial court. The
applicant sought permission to travel to the
USA for revalidation of his Green Card.
The High Court rejected the permission.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court allowed the
appeal by holding that: -

"22. The private complaint which
is the genesis of the present proceedings
was instituted in January 2014. The
gravamen of the allegation is that the
appellant has forged and fabricated the
power of attorney of 19-12-2011 of his
brother Shalin. Mr Jha submits that, as a
1006 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
matter of fact, the power of attorney has
not been used at any point; his brother was
present in India at the time when
conveyance was entered into; and that his
brother has never raised any objection.
However, we are not inclined to go into
these factual aspects at the present stage. It
would suffice to note that the co-accused
was granted bail by the Sessions Judge,
Thane on 16-4-2018. We are called upon to
decide only whether the appellant should
be permitted to travel to the US for eight
weeks. In evaluating this issue, we must
have regard to the nature of the
allegations, the conduct of the appellant
and above all, the need to ensure that he
does not pose a risk of evading the
prosecution. The details which have been
furnished to the Court by the appellant,
indicate that he has regularly travelled
between the US and India on as many as
sixteen occasions between 2015 and 2020.
He has maintained a close contact with
India. The view of the High Court that he
has no contact with India is contrary to the
material on record. The lodging of an FIR
should not in the facts of the present case
be a bar on the travel of the appellant to
the US for eight weeks to attend to the
business of revalidating his Green Card."
(Emphasis added)

14. Thus the Hon'ble Supreme Court
had granted permission to Parvez Noordin
Lokhandwalla
after
taking
into
consideration that the F.I.R. against him
had been lodged on the basis of a private
complaint that he had fabricated a power of
attorney by forging the signature of his
brother, which power of attorney had not
been used at any occasion. The appellant
was a green card holder and he had been
residing in the USA since the year 1985.
He had to travel to USA for revalidation of
his Green Card.

15. It is settled law that a precedent
has to be understood and applied keeping in
view the factual background in which the
case was decided and the question involved
in the case that was decided. The difference
in factual backgrounds of cases may make
a world of difference in application of the
principles
of
law.
In
Parasa
Raja
Manikyala Rao v. State of A.P., (2003) 12
SCC 306: 2003 SCC OnLine SC 1142, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held that: -

"9. Each case, more particularly
a criminal case, depends on its own facts
and a close similarity between one case
and another is not enough to warrant like
treatment because a significant detail may
alter the entire aspect. In deciding such
cases, one should avoid the temptation to
decide cases (as said by Cordozo) by
matching the colour of one case against the
colour of another."

16. The present applicant is an accused
in an FIR lodged by CBI and the case is not
based on any private complaint. The
applicant is seeking permission to travel
abroad for attending the wedding ceremony
of a relative in USA and to enjoy a family
pleasure trip in France. This purpose is not
an essential purpose like revalidation of a
Green Card. Therefore, the facts of the
present case are in no manner similar to the
facts of Parvez Noordin Lokhandwalla
(Supra) and the applicant cannot get any
benefit of it.

17. The proceedings against the
applicant have been initiated by an FIR
lodged
by
the
Central
Bureau
of
Investigation and the trial Court has
charged him for commission of offences
under Section 120-B read with Section 420
I.P.C. and Section 13(2) read with Section
13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption
5 All. Aditya Murti Vs. C.B.I./A.C.B. Lko.
1007
Act. The trial pending since 2011 has now
reached the stage of defence evidence. At
this stage, he wants to travel abroad merely
to attend the wedding ceremony of a grandson of his father's sister, who is not his
immediate family member. After attending
the wedding at San Diego, California,
USA, the applicant wants to have a family
pleasure trip to France.

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. Wedding of a
relative in a foreign country and pleasure
trip to another country are not at all
essential
purposes
for
an
under-trial
accused person's visit abroad.

19. Merely, because the trial Court had
earlier granted permission to the applicant
to travel abroad for non-essential objects on
numerous, he does not get a right to travel
abroad for non-essential 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 at the stage of defence
evidence, the applicant cannot be granted
permission for travel abroad.

21. While exercising the inherent
powers of this Court recognized 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., 2022
SCC OnLine All 674, this Court has held
that a person who has been arrested and
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.

23.
In
view
of
the
foregoing
discussion, I am of the considered view that
the trial Court has not committed any
illegality in rejecting the application
seeking permission for the applicant for his
travel to the USA for attending the
marriage of a relative and to France to
enjoy a family pleasure trip, when the trial
has reached the stage of defence evidence.
The applicant does not have the right to
travel to USA for attending the marriage of
his relative and to France to enjoy a family
pleasure trip when the trial of the case filed
by CBI, in which the applicant is an
accused, has reached the stage of defence
evidence.

24.
The
application
seeking
permission for the applicant's travel abroad
as well as the application under Section 528
1008 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
BNSS lack merits and are, accordingly,
rejected.
----------
(2025) 5 ILRA 1008
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 14.05.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 3979 of 2025

Neeharika Singh ...Applicant
Versus
Directorate of Enforcement Lko.
 ...Opp. Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Aishwarya Pratap Singh, Vivek Kumar
Shukla

Counsel for the Opp. Party:
Kuldeep Srivastava

The Prevention of Money Laundering Act
(PMLA), 2002-Section 3 -Offence of money
laundering u/s 3 of PMLA is independent of
the scheduled offence through which the
proceeds
of
crime
were
generated-if
numerous persons are accused of commission
of the scheduled offence and one or some of
them, but not all of them are exonerated /
discharged or acquitted- it cannot be said that
the
scheduled
offence
has
not
been
committed- or that the proceeds of crime
have not been generated-if prosecution is
going then even if a person is not named as
an accused in the scheduled offence- or if he
/ she has been exonerated / discharged in
respect of the scheduled offence-it will not
create a bar against his / her prosecution
under the PMLA.

Application dismissed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

1. Vijay Madanlal Choudhary & ors. Vs U.O.I. &
ors.: (2022) SCC OnLine SC 929
2. Enforecement Directorate Vs Gagandeep
Singh: 2022 SCC OnLine Del 514

3.
Jeevan Kumar Vs Dy. Directorate of
Enforcement: (2024) SCC OnLine Delhi 271

4. Directorate of Enforcement Vs Akhilesh Singh:
(2024) SCC OnLine Delhi 3051

5. Pavana Dibbur Vs Directorate of Enforcement,
(2023) 15 SCC 91

(Delivered by Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

1. Heard Sri Tushar Agarwal and Sri
Aishwarya Pratap Singh, learned counsel
for the applicant and Shri Rohit Tripathi,
the learned counsel for the respondent-
Directorate of Enforcement.

2. By means of the instant application
filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the
applicant
has
challenged
validity
of
cognizance and summoning order dated
24.10.2024 passed by the learned Special
Judge,
Anti
Corruption/PMLA,
(CBIWest), Lucknow in Session Case No.
2578/2024, the prosecution complaint filed
in
ECIR/LKZO/12/2021
and
all
consequential proceedings in the aforesaid
case.

3. Briefly stated, facts of the case are
that police has registered many FIRs
against several persons for offences under
Sections 120-B, 323, 406, 409, 419, 420,
467, 468, 470, 471, 504, 506, 505(1)(B)
I.P.C. between 21.02.2020 and 26.10.2020
alleging that M/s. Anee Bullion Traders,
Anee Commodity Brokers Pvt. Ltd., Eye
Vision India Credit Co-operative Society
Ltd., Anee Bullion Industries Pvt. Ltd. etc
had propelled many ponzi schemes in
various places of Uttar Pradesh and lured
the investors to invest money in the
Companies under allurement of lucrative
returns. Post dated cheques were issued to