Consensual Relationship That Later Turns Sour Is Not Rape: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Breach of Promise Case Double Presumption of Innocence Applies; No Interference Unless Trial Court Judgment Is Perverse: Allahabad High Court in Murder Appeal Under BNSS A Single Act of Corruption Warrants Dismissal – 32 Years of Service Offers No Immunity: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds ASI’s Removal Suit Against Trustee Without Charity Commissioner’s Consent Is Statutorily Barred: Bombay High Court Government Can't Deny Implied Surrender After Refusing to Accept Possession: Madras HC Clarifies Scope of Section 111(f) of TP Act Custodial Interrogation Must Prevail Over Pre-Arrest Comfort in Hate Speech Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail for Provocative Remarks Against Migrants Mutation Order Without Notice Cannot Stand in Law: Orissa High Court Quashes Tahasildar's Rejection for Violating Natural Justice Cruelty Must Be Grave and Proven – Mere Allegations of Disobedience or Demand for Separate Residence Don’t Justify Divorce: Jharkhand High Court Rejects Husband’s Divorce Appeal Retaliatory Prosecution Cannot Override Liberty: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in PMLA Case Post CBI Trap of ED Officer Illegal Remand Without Production of Accused Is Not a Technical Lapse, But a Constitutional Breach: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Major NDPS Case Inherent Power Under Section 528 BNSS Not a Substitute for Article 226 When FIR Is Under Challenge Without Chargesheet or Cognizance Order: Allahabad High Court Possession Without Title Is Legally Insubstantial: Gujarat HC Dismisses Appeal By Dairy Cooperative Over Void Land Transfer You Can Prosecute a Former Director, But You Can’t Force Him to Represent the Company: Calcutta High Court Lays Down Clear Limits on Corporate Representation in PMLA Cases Conviction Cannot Rest on Tainted Testimony of Injured Witnesses in Isolation: Bombay High Court Acquits Five in Murder Case One Attesting Witness is Sufficient if He Proves Execution and Attestation of Will as Required by Law: AP High Court Land Acquisition | Delay Cannot Defeat Just Compensation: P&H High Court Grants Enhanced Compensation Despite 12-Year Delay in Review Petitions by Landowners Allegations Implausible, Motivated by Malice: Kerala High Court Quashes Rape Case After Finding Abuse Claims a Counterblast to Civil Dispute Adoptions Under Hindu Law Need No Approval from District Magistrate: Madras High Court Declares Administrative Rejection of Adoptive Birth Certificate as Illegal Findings of Fact Cannot Be Re-Appreciated in an Appeal Under Section 10F Companies Act: Madras High Court Equality Is Not A Mechanical Formula, But A Human Commitment: P&H High Court Grants Visually Impaired Mali Retrospective Promotions With Full Benefits Orissa High Court Rules Notice for No Confidence Motion Must Include Both Requisition and Resolution – Provision Held Mandatory Ashramam Built on Private Land, Managed by Family – Not a Public Religious Institution: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Endowments Notification Cruelty Must Be Proved, Not Presumed: Gujarat High Court Acquits Deceased Husband In 498A Case After 22 Years Trade Dress Protection Goes Beyond Labels: Calcutta High Court Affirms Injunction Over Coconut Oil Packaging Mimicry Mere Filing of Income Tax Returns Does Not Exonerate the Accused: Madras High Court Refuses Discharge to Wife of Public Servant in ₹2 Crore DA Case

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