Pendency Of Vigilance Inquiry No Impediment To Travel Abroad: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has observed that pendency of a vigilance inquiry cannot be an impediment for an individual to travel abroad. Justice Subramonium Prasad made the observation while granting relief to a woman, accused in a corruption case, to travel abroad from November 29 to December 14 for her honeymoon. “The short issue that arises for consideration is whether when there is a...
The Delhi High Court has observed that pendency of a vigilance inquiry cannot be an impediment for an individual to travel abroad.
Justice Subramonium Prasad made the observation while granting relief to a woman, accused in a corruption case, to travel abroad from November 29 to December 14 for her honeymoon.
“The short issue that arises for consideration is whether when there is a pending Vigilance Inquiry, can the Petitioner be restrained from travelling abroad or not. This Court is of the opinion that a Vigilance Inquiry cannot be an impediment for the Petitioner to travel abroad,” the court observed.
Accused Ruhi Arora was arrested by Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on July 28 for the offences under Section 7, 7A, 8, 9, 10 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, read with Section 120B of Indian Penal Code. She was granted bail by the trial court on August 19.
Since she had surrendered her passport and there was a restriction on her to travel abroad as per one of the bail conditions, she was again granted permission travel to Singapore and Indonesia in October for her honeymoon.
However, her second application seeking permission to travel abroad was rejected vide the Office Memorandum dated October 16 ans October 30.
It was the authorities’ stand that Arora was accused of serious economic offence as she was accused of taking bribe.
It was contended that the permission to go abroad did not warrant any consideration in view of the crime committed by her and that she can travel inside the country for her honeymoon.
Granting relief to the woman accused, Justice Prasad said:
“The Petitioner would be available for Vigilance Inquiry after she comes back from her honeymoon. It is not an imminent threat that the Petitioner will not come back to the country.”
Advocates Anish Dhingra and Rupinder Oberoi Dhingra appeared for the petitioner
CGSC Vineet Dhanda appeared for respondents
Title: RUHI ARORA v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1124