Tis Hazari Court, Delhi: In an application filed by Arvind Kejriwal’s aide Bibhav Kumar, who was out on bail in the Rajya Sabha MP Swati Maliwal assault case, seeking permission to travel to Sri Lanka for a family vacation, the Single Judge Bench of Bhupinder Singh, J., allowed the application, holding that there were no reasons to reject it.
Background
A case under Sections 308, 354B, 341, 506, and 509 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), was pending against Bibhav, wherein the Supreme Court granted him bail.
Bibhav’s application for the issuance of a No Objection Certificate (‘NOC’) for renewal of his passport was allowed. Based on the NOC, he filed an application for renewal of his passport before the Regional Passport Officebut the same was not entertained citing objections mentioned in the office memorandum (‘OM’) issued by the Passport Seva Program Division, Ministry of External Affairs (‘the Ministry’) which stated that in such cases, the accused was required to seek permission to travel abroad.
Aggrieved, Bibhav filed the present application stating that he and his family had decided to enjoy a vacation in Sri Lanka.
He contended that no such condition of seeking permission from the Court before travelling abroad was put in the bail order of the Supreme Court. However, the same was mentioned in the order of this Court, whereby the NOC for renewal of Bibhav’s passport was given.
The State contended that Bibhav’s detailed itinerary had not been filed on record.
Analysis
Upon noting that the Supreme Court, while granting bail, did not impose any condition on Bibhav to seek permission from the Court before travelling abroad, the Court opined that such permission was not required. However, considering the conditions contained in the OM regarding seeking such permission, the Court considered the present application.
The Court noted that no such conduct of Bibhav was brought to the notice of the Court, since his release on bail, that might dissuade the Court from considering his plea. Further, the order by which he was given NOC to get his passport renewed had not been challenged. Lastly, he was not stated to be a flight risk in the State’s reply, and only the gravity of the offence was emphasised.
The Court remarked that Bibhav not only had the right but also the duty towards his family to take them for a family vacation. There might not be a necessary/ emergency requirement, as contended by the Addl. DCP-II, North.
Thus, the Court found no reason to reject the present application, especially when the next date of hearing was much later than the intended dates of travel.
Accordingly, Bibhav was allowed to travel subject to the following conditions:
- He shall submit the complete address of his stay, a copy of the tickets, and the active mobile numbers in Sri Lanka to the Investigating Officer before his departure.
- He shall furnish additional FDR of Rs 5 Lakhs in his name before departure and an NOC from his surety in the Court. It was clarified that the same shall be forfeited to the State in case any of the information furnished by Bibhav was found to be incorrect as per verification, at any stage.
- He shall inform the Court about his arrival in India within 72 hours.
- In no event will his request for extension for staying abroad be entertained.
-
This permission shall be subject to any other applicable rules and shall not be deemed as directions to any authority except for showing the permission from the Court only.
[State v. Bibhav Kumar, 2025 SCC OnLine Dis Crt (Del) 28, decided on 07-07-2025]
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
