CAN ACCUSED OF NON-BAILABLE OFFENCES TRAVEL ABROAD?

Businessman, Supreme Court, Delhi High Court, Advocate

Bail Bond restrictions on Right to Travel Abroad

In case of non bailable offence, Criminal Procedure Code provides for certain restrictions (including restriction to travel abroad), whereas no such restriction is provided in case of Bailable offence. Fact of the matter is Bail–Bond also provides for the said restrictions.

Supreme Court of India in the matter of Parvez Noordin Lokhandwalla Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. (Criminal Appeal No. 648 of 2020 Decided On: 01.10.2020 ) had the occasion to deal with Section 437 of Code of Criminal Procedure alongwith “Right to Human Dignity” and concluded that if the accused has been frequently travelling abroad he cannot be denied his Right to Travel Abroad only because an FIR has been lodged against him.

This Judgment comes as a relief to such persons who are frequently foreign travelers and are taken for a ransom by lodging an FIR in non-bailable offence. Till now, they were compelled to settle these matters failing which their business / job prospects, abroad will come to a Halt. Such a situation may be taken care of by this Judgment.

In case , you need any clarification / assistance / help, please feel free to contract me on my whatsapp number. i will be happy if you can leave your comments below in this respect. 

My Google Map Location
Location: New Delhi, Delhi, India
Praveen Agrawal Advocate Supreme Court of India A 37 LGF, Amar Colony, Lajpat Nagar - 4, New Delhi Phone # 9811702850 dokania100@gmail.com NO CALLS PLEASE ONLY WHATSAPP ME - IF I FEEL NECESSARY I WILL CALL YOU BACK

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

BORROWER LIABLE TO PAY INTEREST EVEN WHEN LENDER REFUSES TO ACCEPT PAYMENT

Image
      The Common understanding is if Lender has refused to accept the repayment of Loan, then the Borrower’s Liability to pay the interest ceases from the date of such refusal. However, this does not seems to be the correct proposition of Law.  In an recent judgment titled Balwinder Singh Vs. Mithoot Finance (P) Limited and Ors Ld National Consumer Dispute REdressal Commission (NCDRC), (Revision Petition No. 2194 of 2015, Decided On: 23.07.2020 ) refused to accept the argument of the Borrower that he has tendered to repay and imposed an interest on the borrower even for the period subsequent to the said offer to repay.   While coming to this conclusion , LD NCDRC relied on the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Alok Shanker Pandey Vs. Union of India &Ors. , II (2007) CPJ 3 (SC) has observed as under:-  “9. It may be mentioned that there is misconception about interest. Interest is not a penalty or punishment at all, but it is the normal...
Read more

ARE ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE ADMISSIBLE IN ABSENCE OF SECTION 65B EVIDENCE ACT, CERTIFICATE?

Image
           Electronic Evidence plays a vital role in any trial – Civil or Criminal. As per Common understanding Electronic Evidence is inadmissible, if it is not accompanied with Section 65B Certificate. Thereby debarring good evidence because of lack of Section 65B Certificate.   Law on this aspect is re-visited by Supreme Court and it is held as under:-   • If Original Electronic Evidence is produced, there is no need of Section 65B Certificate. However, copies of Original Electronic Evidence will require Section 65B Certificate.    • Electronic Evidence cannot be proved as Secondary Evidence as per Evidence Act.   • Section 65A and 65B of Evidence Act is a complete code in itself.    • Concerned Court can relax the production of Section 65B Certificate to the Person who is NOT in possession of device from which electronic evidence is produced.    Case Law - Arjun Panditrao Khotkar Vs. Kailash Kushanrao ...
Read more

IS BUILDER REALTOR LIABLE TO PAY COMPENSATION TO CONSUMER FOR DELAYED POSSESSION?

Image
           Normally, whenever a man buys a house from the builder/ developer, contract provides for a delivery period (Generally 3 years) and also for an extension (Generally 6 months). The contract generally further provides for payment of interest in case of delay in payment by the Buyer and Compensation (which is a meager amount) in case of delayed possession by the Builder.    Since the Compensation by the Builder is very meager, as per the Contract. Therefore the Question which arose for the consideration of Supreme Court was whether Courts can award any compensation exceeding the Contract ? Supreme Court awards compensation to buyer  Supreme Court in the matter of  Arifur Rahman Khan Vs. DLF Southern Homes Pvt. Ltd.  (decided on 24-08-2020) gave Judgment in favour of Buyers and provided for Compensation over and above what is provided under the Contract. In addition to the compensation provided under the contract, Supreme Cour...
Read more