Dev Adania vs. State Of Rajasthan

Facts

The petitioner, Dev Adania, a businessman dealing in gold and silver ornaments, filed a criminal revision petition challenging an order dated 17.07.2023 by the Special Judge, Pali. This order rejected his application for permission to travel abroad and for cancellation of a Look-Out Circular (LOC) issued against him in connection with FIR No. 21/2021, registered for offences under Sections 420 & 120B of IPC and Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act. The petitioner was arrested on 08.03.2023 and released on bail on 14.03.2023. He had previously sought permission to travel to Dubai for business, which was rejected on 12.05.2023 due to pending investigation. The current petition arises from the rejection of a subsequent application.

Held

The Court allowed the Criminal Revision Petition, quashing the impugned order dated 17.07.2023 and the Look-Out Circular. The Court reasoned that the petitioner is a businessman who travels abroad regularly for his business, and it would be unfair to prevent him from travelling for a case in which he is not the main accused and was not even named in the FIR. The Court noted that the petitioner had sought permission for a ten-day business trip, and his inability to travel since March had likely caused business losses, leading to irreparable harm given the likely duration of the investigation and trial. The Court found no reason to curb his right to travel now that the investigation is complete and charge sheet filed, especially since no travel restrictions were imposed in his bail order or in a Supreme Court order staying his arrest in a related GST matter, and he had travelled abroad successfully post that order, indicating he is not a flight risk. The Court also considered the potential expiry of his Dubai visa and the fact that another co-accused faced no travel impediments. Furthermore, the Court acknowledged the fundamental right to travel abroad under Article 21, citing Parvez Noordin Lokhandwalla. The accused was permitted to travel to Dubai and other countries on specific conditions: providing one month's prior notice for court appearances, furnishing two sureties of Rs. 5,00,000/- each from his father and wife, and returning to India within 90 days of departure, failing which his passport would be seized. The issue of whether the petitioner is a flight risk was implicitly decided against the revenue.

Key Issues

1. Whether the continuation of the Look-Out Circular against the petitioner is justified when the investigation is complete and charge sheet has been filed, thereby infringing his fundamental right to travel abroad under Article 21 of the Constitution of India? 2. Whether the petitioner, being a co-accused not named in the FIR and having a history of international travel without absconding, should be permitted to travel abroad for business purposes, especially considering the potential expiry of his Dubai visa and the precedent set by a co-accused in a similar matter? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that he is not the main accused and was not named in the FIR. He emphasized the need to travel to Dubai for business, highlighting the condition of his one-time visa requiring visits every six months, failing which it would expire. He cited the case of another co-accused, Chirag Jain, whose arrest was stayed by a co-ordinate bench without travel restrictions. He also referred to an SLP concerning GST where the Supreme Court stayed his arrest without imposing travel restrictions, and noted his successful international travel post that order. He contended that the purpose of the LOC was to secure his presence during investigation, which is now complete. He asserted his fundamental right to travel abroad under Article 21, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in Parvez Noordin Lokhandwalla Vs. State of Maharashtra. Revenue's Arguments: The State opposed the petition, arguing that the petitioner is accused in a tax evasion case involving a substantial amount, and the possibility of him evading legal process and not returning to the country cannot be ruled out.