Magistrate's Direction for Police Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Is Valid; Petitioner Must Await Investigation Outcome: Bombay High Court Dismisses Advocate's Petition as Premature    |     Tribunal’s Compensation Exceeding Claimed Amount Found Just and Fair Under Motor Vehicles Act: No Deduction Errors Warrant Reduction: Gujrat High Court    |     When Two Accused Face Identical Charges, One Cannot Be Convicted While the Other is Acquitted: Supreme Court Emphasizes Principle of Parity in Acquittal    |     Supreme Court Limits Interim Protection for Financial Institutions, Modifies Order on FIRs Filed by Borrowers    |     Kerala High Court Grants Regular Bail in Methamphetamine Case After Delay in Chemical Analysis Report    |     No Sign of Recent Intercourse; No Injury Was Found On Her Body Or Private Parts: Gauhati High Court Acquits Two In Gang Rape Case    |     Failure to Disclose Relationship with Key Stakeholder Led to Setting Aside of Arbitral Award: Gujarat High Court    |     Strict Compliance with UAPA's 7-Day Timeline for Sanctions is Essential:  Supreme Court    |     PAT Teachers Entitled to Regularization from 2014, Quashes Prospective Regularization as Arbitrary: Himachal Pradesh High Court    |     Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Anonymity Protections for Victims in Sensitive Cases: Right to Privacy Prevails Over Right to Information    |     Certified Copy of Will Admissible Under Registration Act, 1908: Allahabad HC Dismisses Plea for Production of Original Will    |     Injuries on Non-Vital Parts Do Not Warrant Conviction for Attempt to Murder: Madhya Pradesh High Court Modifies Conviction Under Section 307 IPC to Section 326 IPC    |     Classification Based on Wikipedia Data Inadmissible; Tribunal to Reassess Using Actual Financial Records: PH High Court Orders Reconsideration of Wage Dispute    |     Mere Delay in Initiation Does Not Justify Reduction of Damages: Jharkhand High Court on Provident Fund Defaults    |     Legatee Can Continue Suit Without Probate, But Decree Contingent on Probate Approval: Orissa High Court    |     An Award that Shocks the Conscience of the Court Cannot Stand, Especially When Public Money is Involved: Calcutta HC Reduces Quantum by Half    |     Trademark Transaction Within Territoriality Principle Subject to Indian Tax Laws: Bombay High Court Dismisses Hindustan Unilever's Petition on Non-Deduction of TDS    |     Concealment of Material Facts Bars Relief under Article 226: SC Reprimands Petitioners for Lack of Bonafides    |     Without Determination of the Will's Genuineness, Partition is Impossible: Supreme Court on Liberal Approach to Pleading Amendments    |     Candidates Cannot Challenge a Selection Process After Participating Without Protest : Delhi High Court Upholds ISRO's Administrative Officer Recruitment    |     Invalid Bank Guarantee Invocation Found Fatal to Recovery Claim: Delhi High Court Dismisses GAIL’s Appeal    |     Adverse Remarks in APAR Recorded Without Objectivity and Likely Motivated by Bias: Delhi High Court Quashes Biased APAR Downgrade of CRPF Officer    |    

Fundamental Right to Travel: High Court Grants Permission to Former Punjab Minister to Attend Family Events in the USA

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, presided by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vikas Bahl, has reinforced the ‘fundamental right to travel’ by allowing a former Cabinet Minister and three-time MLA, Sangat Singh Gilzian, to visit the United States of America. The decision, dated November 6, 2023, facilitates Mr. Gilzian’s participation in familial events, including a wedding and a housewarming function, amidst his ongoing trial.

In the case of Sangat Singh Gilzian versus the State of Punjab, the Court observed that the “mere involvement of the petitioner in a criminal case cannot be made the basis to reject his prayer to travel abroad,” particularly when the petitioner has been compliant with all legal proceedings and has shown no inclination toward abscondment. The Court emphasized that the right to travel is not only a constitutional guarantee but also an extension of an individual’s personal life.

Justice Bahl’s decision overruled the trial court’s apprehensions about potential evasion of law, stating that such fears were based on “surmises and conjectures” and highlighting the lack of evidence to suggest the petitioner would not return. In the judgment, the Court remarked, “It is thus, apparent that the petitioner had raised debatable arguments with respect to his involvement in the FIR.”

The Court laid down stringent conditions for the petitioner’s travel, which include furnishing two sureties of Rs. 50 lakhs each and an undertaking to return to India immediately after the visit. Mr. Gilzian’s commitment to returning before the next hearing of his anticipatory bail application on November 29, 2023, played a crucial role in the Court’s decision.

The ruling has drawn attention to the balance between individual freedoms and the requirements of the judicial process. It also sets a precedent for similar cases, where the personal liberties of individuals under trial are to be judiciously considered against the backdrop of their constitutional rights.

Advocates Mr. Gautam Dutt represented the petitioner, while Mr. Ferry Sofat, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, appeared for the state. The case has been a focal point in discussions on the judiciary’s role in safeguarding fundamental rights while ensuring that justice is served without prejudice or favor.   

Date of Decision: 06.11.2023

Sangat Singh Gilzian VS State of Punjab 

Similar News