ABHISHEK Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 2.4.2012, whereby his application dated 27.3.2012 preferred under sections 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C. is rejected by the court below. The petitioner is an accused before the court below pursuant to FIR, Annexure P-2. The said case was lodged against the petitioner pursuant to a complaint by his wife for the alleged offence under sections 498-A, 506 and 34 IPC. The aforesaid application was preferred by the petitioner on the ground that he is an IT Engineer and was working in Pune with a Multi-National Company and in the course of employment he is required to travel abroad for various assignments for short duration of 5 to 8 months. Between 2008 to 2011 the petitioner has travelled abroad for three times. The petitioner was arrested pursuant to aforesaid FIR and after release on bail on 14.7.2011 he took up another job with another Multi-National Company at Chennai. This nature of job of the petitioner also compels him to travel abroad frequently for short duration. He submits that the case of the petitioner is that the court below although allowed the application but imposed a condition which is not practical in nature and it infringes his fundamental right.

(2.) THE main contention of the petitioner is that the court below has imposed a condition whereby the petitioner is directed to deposit a "Supurdiginama" of Rs.20000/- and also security of the like amount with the condition that he will not use the passport for going abroad without the leave of the court during pendency of the matter. He will leave India only after seeking permission from the court and while granting such permission, the court will provide him passport on interim basis.

(3.) THE petitioner has not chosen to file copy of the application under sections 451 and 457 Cr.P.C. before this Court, which was decided by the court below. The impugned order does not reflect whether the same argument was advanced by the petitioner before the court below. In other words, neither the averments of the application are before this Court nor from the impugned order it is clear whether the same contention was advanced by the petitioner before the court below. The only contention which is dealt with by the court below is whether non- refund of passport will deprive him from his rights flowing from Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. On the basis of aforesaid submission the court below has not totally deprived the petitioner to take the benefit of passport. It only imposed certain conditions pursuant to which the said benefit of passport can be enjoyed by the petitioner.