ANAMIKA YADAV Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is for grant of permission to the petitioner to proceed abroad i.e. to the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Petitioner also assails the order dated 18.1.2016, Annexure P3, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtak in terms of which such prayer has been declined.

(2.) It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that she has been falsely implicated along with her husband Shri Amit Lamba in FIR No.257 dated 2.6.2014, under Sections 420, 406, 506, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Rohtak. Order dated 5.11.2015 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc.No. M-34934 of 2015, Annexure P2, granting concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No.257 dated 2.6.2014 had been adverted to, to contend that the main accused is Amit Lamba and against whom there were allegations made by the complainant therein of having mis-appropriated a sum of Rs. 3,50,000/- on the pretext of making an investment in a Company in UAE. It is further submitted that the petitioner is a house-wife and has small children i.e. Rahi Yadav i.e. son and Lesha Yadav, daughter who are admitted to a School in UAE. Learned counsel would argue that the husband of the petitioner is residing in UAE and his business interest is such that he has to visit different places and as such, cannot remain present in the house to look after and take care of children. It has also been argued that the impugned order dated 18.1.2016, Annexure P3, passed by the learned Additional Chief judicial Magistrate, Rohtak cannot sustain as it is violative of the right of the petitioner to go abroad as the same would be part and parcel of the personal liberty of the petitioner enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Reliance has also been placed upon orders passed by this Court in Naginder Singh Rana v. State of Punjab, 2004 3 RCR(Cri) 912 , Jagtar Singh v. State of Punjab and another, 2004 4 RCR(Cri) 521 and Anjal Kumar @ A another, v. State of Punjab and another, 2010 1 RCR(Cri) 201.

(3.) Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and having perused the pleadings on record, this Court is of the considered view that the prayer of the petitioner seeking permission to go abroad cannot be accepted.