Non-Production Of Case Property And Missing Link Evidence In Seizure Cases Vitiates Prosecution: Himachal Pradesh High Court Employees Compensation Act | Death Due To Cardiac Arrest During Employment Is An 'Accident' Arising Out Of Stress And Strain Of Duty: J&K High Court Transfer Of Proceedings | Courts Must Issue Fresh Notice To Parties Even If They Had Appeared Before The Transferor Court: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Ex-Parte Award Section 80P(4) IT Act Does Not Deny Deduction To Regional Rural Banks As They Retain The 'Deemed Co-operative Society' Status Under Section 22 RRB Act: Madras High Court Property Purchased In Name Of Child For Family Benefit Is Not A 'Benami Transaction' Under Section 2(9) Of The 1988 Act: Madhya Pradesh High Court Person Without Caveatable Interest Cannot Challenge Will Or Seek Revocation Of Probate: Madras High Court Divorce | Cruelty Must Be Assessed By Cumulative Effect Of Matrimonial Conduct Rather Than Isolated Incidents: Orissa High Court Merely Labeling Insurance Policy As Comprehensive Does Not Create Unlimited Liability: MP High Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected If Limitation Bar Is Apparent From Face Of Pleadings: Patna High Court Limitation Act | 'Sufficient Cause' Cannot Be Used To Revive Stale Or Dead Claims By State: Orissa High Court Quashes Order Condoning 53-Year Delay Employee Cannot Remain Dormant Like Rip Van Winkle & Awaken At Convenience: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Stale Service Plea With ₹25K Cost Section 29 NDPS Act | Mere Allegation Of 'Cooperation' Without Specific Overt Acts Cannot Sustain Charge Of Conspiracy: Rajasthan High Court Forest Land Status Does Not Extinguish Private Civil Title: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Decree For Possession Once Admitted In Evidence, Document Cannot Be De-Marked On Grounds Of Insufficiency Of Stamp Duty: Telangana High Court Section 190 BNSS | Mere Presence In Unlawful Assembly With Active Intent Renders Member Vicariously Liable For Homicidal Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Contributory Negligence Under Motor Vehicles Act Cannot Be Inferred Without Cogent Evidence: Telangana High Court Enhances Compensation Motor Vehicles Act | Section 164 Compensation Of Rs. 5 Lakhs Applicable Even To Pending Claims Arising Prior To 2019 Amendment: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consumer Protection Act | Builder Liable To Pay Interest For Delayed Possession Despite Force Majeure Plea If Agreement Executed Post-Outbreak: State Commission

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 

Latest Legal News