01Facts
The petitioner, an accused in a case arising from an FIR alleging offences under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the IPC, sought permission to travel to the United States from 1 November 2026 to 31 August 2027 and temporary release of his passport.
pp. 1–4 · ¶ 1, 4, 6–7His criminal trial had been stayed by an order of the High Court dated 27 December 2016, and the Sessions Court had noted that he appeared when called.
pp. 1–4 · ¶ 1, 4, 6–7On 16 October 2026, the Principal Sessions Judge, Gandhinagar, granted permission only until 31 December 2026.
pp. 1–4 · ¶ 1, 4, 6–7The petitioner sought modification of that period, relying on medical records indicating that he was a cardiac patient requiring treatment in the United States.
pp. 1–4 · ¶ 1, 4, 6–702Issues
i.Whether the petitioner’s permission to travel abroad and temporary release of his passport should be extended beyond 31 December 2026, up to 31 August 2027, in light of his medical circumstances and the status of the criminal proceedings.
pp. 3–5 · ¶ 4–7ii.Whether the Sessions Court’s order should be modified or set aside to give effect to that extension.
pp. 1–2, 5 · ¶ 1, 7–903Law Applied
The petition invoked Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
p. 1 · ¶ 1The petitioner was charged under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the IPC.
p. 4 · ¶ 6The Court cited no specific precedent or detailed legal test governing travel permission or passport release; it determined the application on the circumstances before it, including the petitioner’s medical records, participation in the proceedings and the stay of the trial.
pp. 4–5 · ¶ 6–7Provisions in the judgment · 7 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 528
Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 406Section 420Section 465Section 467Section 468Section 471
04Reasoning
The Court noted that the trial had been stayed since 2016 and that the Sessions Court had recorded the petitioner’s attendance when required.
p. 4 · ¶ 6It also considered the medical records indicating that the petitioner was a cardiac patient who needed treatment in the United States.
p. 5 · ¶ 7Weighing these circumstances against the State’s concern that an extended absence could adversely affect the trial, the Court concluded that the requested extension was justified, subject to the petitioner providing his tour programme and surrendering his passport after returning.
p. 3, 5 · ¶ 5, 705Holding
The Court allowed the petition and permitted the petitioner to travel abroad from 7 November 2026 until 31 August 2027.
p. 5 · ¶ 7–9He was directed to provide his tour-programme details to the Principal Sessions Judge, Gandhinagar, and to surrender his passport during the first week of September 2027.
p. 5 · ¶ 7–9The remaining conditions of the Sessions Court’s order were to remain unchanged, except condition No. 4.
p. 5 · ¶ 7–9The Court stated that the Sessions Court’s order was quashed and set aside and made the Rule absolute to that extent.
p. 5 · ¶ 7–9Original Court PDF
RAJESH RAVJIBHAI PATELvsSTATE OF GUJARAT
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
