DEVINENI AVINASH Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Ss. 438 and 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, 'the BNSS '), challenging the order dtd. 16/6/2026 passed by the learned VI Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Special Court for Trial of CID Cases, Guntur (for brevity, 'the Trial Court '), in Crl.M.P.No.274 of 2026 in Crime No.650 of 2021 of Mangalagiri Rural Police Station (now being investigated by the CID, R.O., Guntur), whereby and whereunder the application filed by the petitioner/Accused No.31 under Ss. 451 and 457 of 'the Cr.P.C., ' read with Sec. 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967, seeking return of his Passport bearing No.B9882014 and permission to travel abroad, i.e., to the USA, from 30/6/2026 to 15/7/2026, was dismissed.

(2.) Sri C. Raghu, learned Senior Counsel, representing Mr. Vivekananda Virupaksha, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the impugned order rejecting the petitioner's application seeking permission to travel abroad is arbitrary, illegal, and based on irrelevant considerations. He contends that the learned Trial Judge erred in holding that the petitioner's proposed travel to the USA was merely social and celebratory in nature, as such a distinction is unknown to law and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. He further submits that the investigation has already been completed, the charge sheet has been filed, and the petitioner's presence is not required merely because the FSL report is awaited. Learned Senior Counsel also submits that the petitioner was earlier permitted to travel abroad and had duly complied with all the conditions, thereby demonstrating that he is not a flight risk. He further submits that the petitioner has a fixed place of abode and is willing to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Therefore, he prays that the impugned order be set aside and the petitioner be permitted to travel to the USA.

(3.) Per contra, Sri M.Lakshmi Narayana, the learned Public Prosecutor, opposed the petition and supported the impugned order and submits that the learned Trial Court has rightly passed the order refusing permission to the petitioner to travel abroad. He further submits that, previously, the learned Trial Court had granted permission to the petitioner to travel to Burgos, Spain, for a period of 10 days, i.e., from 3/7/2025 to 12/7/2025, as he had to assist his minor daughter in participating in a competition. However, the learned Trial Court dismissed the present petition as no sufficient cause was shown by the petitioner, since the reason assigned for travelling abroad was purely social and celebratory in nature rather than urgent or fundamental. As the reason assigned by the petitioner was not satisfactory, the learned Trial Court rightly dismissed the petition. Therefore, he prays that the petition be dismissed.