The Delhi High court in the case Ruhi Arora v. Union of India observed and has stated that the pendency of a vigilance inquiry cannot be an impediment for an individual to travel abroad. The bench headed by Justice Subramonium Prasad in the case observed and has granted relief to the woman who is been accused in a corruption case, to travel abroad from November 29 to December 14 for her honeymoon.
The court in the case observed and has stated that the short issue arises for consideration is whether when there is a pending Vigilance Inquiry, can the Petitioner be restrained from travelling abroad or not. The said court is of the opinion that a Vigilance Inquiry cannot be an impediment for the Petitioner to travel abroad,” the court observed.
In the present case, the accused Ruhi Arora was arrested by Central Bureau of Investigation, CBI on July 28 for the offences under Section 7, section 7A, section 8, section 9, section 10 and section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, reading with Section 120B of Indian Penal Code. The trial court granted bail to her on August 19, 2023.
However, 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.
Therefore, the second application was moved by her seeking permission to travel abroad was rejected vide the Office Memorandum dated October 16 and October 30. The court observed that it was the authorities stand that Arora was accused of serious economic offence as she was accused of taking bribe.
It was also contended before the court that 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.
The bench of Justice Prasad in the case observed while granting relief to the woman that 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. The counsel, Advocate Anish Dhingra and Advocate Rupinder Oberoi Dhingra appeared for the petitioner.
The counsel, CGSC Vineet Dhanda represented the respondents.
