22,March 2024
There is a thin line under Indian law between protecting victims' rights and the rights of the accused, and this thin line has come under close examination. Two fundamental principles of Indian jurisprudence are the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial. However, it is also crucial to guarantee that victims receive justice and are protected from any harm. Here, we have looked at the Indian legal precedents and procedures that restrict an accused person's ability to go abroad when doing so might jeopardize the victim's safety or rights. Now let's read!
Watch Now – Can an accused go abroad?
What Does The Law Say?
Section 205 of Cr.P.C.: Magistrate may dispense with personal attendance of accused
A magistrate may, upon issuance of a summons, free the accused from personal presence and, if appropriate, permits legal counsel. Nonetheless, the Magistrate is still able to decide whether or not to demand the accused's personal attendance during the proceedings, and if needed, they can enforce it. This clause allows the Magistrate to impose personal attendance if it is thought necessary at any point during the legal procedure, albeit it first permits representation by counsel.
Section 317 Cr.P.C.: Provision for inquiries and trials being held in the absence of the accused in certain cases
The law's Section 317 permits a judge or magistrate to decide, with documented justification, whether an accused person must personally attend court proceedings in order to be fairly tried or if the accused person is interfering with the proceedings. The judge or magistrate may proceed without the accused present if they have legal counsel, but they may subsequently need their presence. However, the Judge or Magistrate may delay the case or separate the accused's if the accused is not represented or if their presence is considered necessary, and they will provide written reasons for their decision. This clause allows for flexibility in handling legal investigations or trials, striking a balance between the administration of court procedures and the interests of justice.
What Does The Court Say Regarding ‘Can An Accused Go Abroad?
A number of significant instances have influenced the legal environment in India with relation to travel authorizations and passport seizure. The Supreme Court underlined the value of due process and individual rights in Parvez Noordin Lokhandwalla v. State of Maharashtra (2020) by allowing travel authorization to those with legal matters in India while stressing the possible impact on personal freedoms. Similar to this, the Karnataka High Court emphasized the importance of the Passport Act, 1967 and ensured procedural fairness when it ruled in Praveen Surendiran v. State Of Karnataka (2022) by making it clear that passports cannot be seized by courts under Section 104 of the CrPC.
These decisions uphold the values set out in the landmark Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) decision, which increased the safeguards provided by Article 21 to include the rule of law, due process, and the freedom to travel. Furthermore, in balancing individual rights with legal concerns, examples such as Ganpati Ramnath v State of Bihar (2015) and Pitam Pradhan v. State of A.P. (2014) highlight the courts' readiness to give travel authorization for medical or employment reasons even in the middle of ongoing legal procedures.
Reasons Why An Accused Should Not Be Allowed To Leave The Nation
From an Indian legal standpoint, allowing an accused individual to leave the nation while criminal procedures are ongoing might entail a number of drawbacks:
- Risk of Flight
- Tampering with Evidence
- Proceedings Delay
- Loss of Jurisdiction
- International Extradition Challenges
- Precedent Setting
- Security Concerns
Conclusion
Parvez Noordin Lokhandwalla and Praveen Surendiran are two examples of cases that highlight the importance of due process and the careful application of the law. Additionally, the historic Maneka Gandhi case highlighted the freedom to go abroad guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, broadening the definition of personal liberty.
All things considered, the question of whether or not accused people may leave the country while criminal proceedings are pending captures the judiciary's vital role in upholding a precarious balance between individual freedoms and the demands of justice in a constantly changing legal environment.