Read Time: 08 minutes
There cannot be a reason that a person is refused to offer prayer at a holy place of their religion just because he had once performed the same earlier also, the court observed.
The Calcutta High Court on Wednesday set aside a trial court's order dated April 4, 2023, denying the application of an accused, who was on bail, for visiting Macca in the holy month of Ramzan to perform Umrah.
The single judge bench of Justice Bibek Chaudhuri observed that there cannot be a reason that a person is refused to offer prayer at a holy place of their religion just because he had once performed Urmah earlier also in the year 2018.
The judge added that “in case if this ground is accepted, as a logical corollary it would mean that a person of any religion cannot offer his prayer or puja if it is once performed by him.”
The petitioner-accused who is Mohammedan by religion wanted to go to Macca to perform Umrah between April 1, 2023, to April 24, 2023, and therefore he approached the trial court to ask permission to visit. The trial court denied his request by order dated April 4, 2023. The petitioner aggrieved by this order filed a revision petition before the present bench.
Background:
On August 16, 2019, a Jaguar F-PACE crashed into a Mercedes E-Class 220d at the Theatre Road-Loudon Street Crossing, Kolkata which hit two nationals of Bangladesh who died on the spot. According to police officials, Raghib- the current petitioner in the case was driving the car. The police had framed the charges under section 304 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder), section 279 (rash and negligent driving), section 427(mischief) and sections 119 and 177 under Motor Vehicles Act.
The investigation against him started with the complaint filed against him, during the investigation it was observed that the family members of the accused tried to mislead the probe agency. The accused initially took shelter in his relative's house on the outskirt of Kolkata and from there he fled to Dubai.
The Calcutta High Court initially granted interim bail on April 8, 2020, for a period of two months on the basis of a medical report issued by the Director of the Institute of Psychiatry which was later extended on different occasions.
Later on, the high court denied the bail and said, "Having considered the initial conduct of the accused, which reflects that after committing the ghastly incident he fled away to a foreign country, we are of the opinion that the interim bail so granted to the accused should not be extended".
Further, the court directed him to surrender before the Chief Judge, City Sessions Court Calcutta on or before April 20, 2021.
After that, Raghib's father filed an appeal before the Apex court against the order of the high court denying bail to him.
The Apex Court held that the impugned order passed by the Calcutta High Court are only for the purpose of bail and would not affect the trial in any manner.
Proceeding before the present bench
In the present case, the trial judge relied upon the cases of Maneka Gandhi vs. UOI 1978 and Satwant Singh Sawhney vs. D. Ramarathnam & Ors 1967 to support his decision of not allowing Raghib to travel to Saudi Arabia.
The bench mentioned that the decisions relied on by this Court relate to different aspects where the passport of a person was seized or under the direction of the Court it was surrendered before the judicial authority. Here the accused is on bail and no such condition is imposed upon him.
The bench permitted him to travel to Macca unless his travel is not prohibited by any other authority under the law.
Justice Chaudhuri allowed the revision petition filed by the petitioner. He also directed him to appear before the court by April 27, 2023.
Case Title: Raghib Parwez vs. State of West Bengal
Please Login or Register
