Punjab and Haryana High Court: The present petition was filed by a 21 years old student (‘accused’), under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’) for quashing an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, whereby the accused’s application to seek permission to pursue higher study abroad was dismissed. A Single Judge bench of Surya Pratap Singh J. observed that if the rights to pursue study and build-up career were denied on mere apprehension of fleeting legal process, it would certainly have an adverse impact on the accused’s career and could spoil his future. Thus, the Court allowed the petition and directed the Trial Court to allow the accused to go abroad, and stated that the Trial Court could impose severe conditions to prevent delay in disposal of trial.
Background
In the present case, the accused was facing prosecution for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 147, 149, 323, 324, 379, 379-B and 506 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and Sections 3(2) and 3(2)(va) of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
The accused cleared the International English Language Testing System (‘IELTS’) test after passing class 12th and wanted to go abroad for further studies. The International University of Applied Sciences Berlin (Germany) had offered him admission in B.Sc. Computer Science course, and the total duration of the said course was supposed to be for 36 months. He had moved an application before the Trial Court for permission to go abroad, but the same was declined.
The accused’s counsel contended that he was a young boy pursuing his study, and that denial of chance to go abroad for further studies would shatter all his future prospects, amounting to denial of fundamental right to build up his career. Per contra, the State counsel argued that he might run away from the legal process if allowed to go abroad.
Analysis and Decision
Considering that the denial of permission to go abroad was merely based upon an apprehension that the accused might evade the course of law, the Court opined that to procure presence, he could be asked to furnish heavy surety, as a guarantee for return. Additionally, to prevent delay in disposal of trial, he could be asked to furnish an undertaking to the effect that his appearance could be exempted, and evidence could be recorded in his absence.
Further, the Court observed that the accused was a 21-year-old young boy with a bright future. Merely on the apprehension of fleeing from the course of law, if the right to pursue his study, and build-up career were denied, it would certainly have an adverse impact on his career and could spoil his future. The Court opined that it would be a travesty as reformation was an integral part of our justice delivery system.
Since the findings of the Trial Court were merely based on apprehension of prosecution, the Court opined that it was not based upon sound legal principles and therefore, there was ample scope for interference and indulgence of extraordinary jurisdiction vested in it.
Thus, the Court allowed the petition and directed the Trial Court to allow the accused to go abroad. However, the Court stated that the Trial Court could impose severe conditions such as heavy surety to ensure his participation in the trial and could also ask for undertaking that he would not object if the evidence was recorded in his absence.
[Anand v. State of Haryana, 2025 SCC OnLine P&H 7788, decided on 9-9-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Accused: Nikhil Ghai, Advocate and Nipun Bhardwaj, Advocate
For the Respondent: Deepali Verma, Asstt. A.G. Haryana, Kumesh Dandyan, Advocate and Pankaj Mehta, Advocate
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
