Read Time: 05 minutes
The bench of Justice Girish Kathpalia remarked, “The present appeal was filed in the year 2019 and admitted by the predecessor bench, to be heard at its turn as a regular matter. On account of acute shortage of judges as compared to the general population and the litigation quantum, for past long time, the list of regular matters does not reach till end of the day of hearing”.
The Delhi High Court, on Friday, allowed a petition filed by an accused seeking permission to travel to Almaty, Kazakhstan, and Georgia to attend a club assembly of the Rotary Club.
The court noted that the present application was filed in 2019, but due to an acute shortage of judges in comparison to the general population and the volume of litigation, regular case lists often remained incomplete by the end of the hearing day.
The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), represented by Special Public Prosecutor Ripudaman Bhardwaj, opposed the application. The CBI argued that if the applicant/appellant were allowed to leave the country, he might not return to face the sentence, which had been suspended by a predecessor bench at the time of admitting his appeal.
Advocate Vikas Arora, representing the applicant, submitted that the applicant had previously been granted permission to travel abroad through an order dated August 1, 2019, and had duly returned to pursue his appeal. It was further submitted that the applicant had strong societal roots, with one son practicing as an advocate of the court and the other son engaged in the applicant's business. It was also highlighted that the applicant was approximately 67 years old, reducing any likelihood of absconding.
SPP Bhardwaj referred to an earlier order dated November 26, 2019, where a similar request for travel permission was declined, as it was considered a leisure trip. SPP Bhardwaj reiterated concerns that the applicant/appellant might not return if permitted to travel.
After examining the records, the court noted that while permission for business-related trips had been granted earlier, requests for leisure travel had been declined. The court acknowledged that due to the heavy backlog of cases and an acute shortage of judges, many appeals, including the present one, filed in 2019, remained pending for long periods. It observed that denying the right to leisure or social activities indefinitely under such circumstances would be unjustified.
“In such uncertain atmosphere, depriving the applicant/appellant free movement, even if to enjoy leisure trips cannot be justified”, the court observed. The court also emphasized the necessity of safeguarding the legal process by imposing appropriate conditions to ensure the applicant/appellant’s return. Accordingly, the court allowed the application.
For Applicant: Advocate Vikas AroraFor CBI: Special Public Prosecutor Ripudaman BhardwajCase Title: Mukesh Gupta v CBI (2025:DHC:2936)
Please Login or Register
