Allowed

Dr. Anil Kumar Henry v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC9 May 2019CRMP/1132/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail matter, the High Court granted permission to the applicant to travel abroad for two months to secure medical attention for his mother and attend his daughter's convocation, subject to conditions requiring itinerary submission and reporting upon return.

What did the court decide?

Permission to go abroad for two months conditional upon submission of itinerary and reporting upon return. Petition disposed.

Dr. Anil Kumar Henry Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Bail and Remand | Chhattisgarh HC (2019)

¶1

-1-

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

CRMP No. 1132 of 2019

¶5

Dr. Anil Kumar Henry S/o Late Shri V.K Henry, Aged About 53 Years, Director Christian Mission Hospital, Mungeli Road, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh., District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh

¶6

---- Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station - Mungeli, Tahsil and District Mungeli Chhattisgarh., District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh

¶9

----Respondent

¶10

For Petitioner/applicant – Shri Kishore Bhaduri, Shri Azad Siddique and Shri Pankaj Singh, Advocates.

¶11

For Respondent/State – Shri I. Lakra, Deputy Govt. Advocate.

¶12

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant

¶13

Order on Board

¶14

09-05-2019

¶15

This petition has been brought seeking permission of this Court for going abroad for a period of two months.

¶16

2 . It is submitted, that mother of the applicant is American citizen who resides in USA. She is 80 years old and she needs some medical attention. Apart from that, the daughter of the applicant is also studying in USA and convocation has to be held in the university where she is studying, within this month. Therefore, the applicant is required to go abroad to attend the medical treatment of his mother and also to attend convocation ceremony of his daughter, hence, it is prayed that he may be granted permission to go abroad for a period of two months.

¶17

3 . Learned counsel for the State/non-applicant opposes the application submitting that investigation is still not completed, therefore, the application may be rejected.

¶18

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused documents.

¶19

In the order passed in M.Cr.C.(A) No.382 of 2017 dated 14-11-2017

¶20

-2-

¶21

specific condition was imposed that the applicant shall not leave this Country until and unless the investigation/trial in the case against him is completed. However, the liberty was granted that he may make a prayer before this Court in case he has a requirement to leave this Country for temporary period on account of some specific reasons.

¶22

The application is supported with affidavit filed by the applicant himself. Considering that at present there is no specific requirement of presence of the applicant in the jurisdiction of the Court concerned, therefore, I feel inclined to allow this application.

¶23

Consequently, the application is allowed, with a direction that the applicant shall furnish details of his itinerary to the concerned Court informing about the date of his departure and his destinations and that he shall report to the Court concerned on his arrival back to the Country.

¶24

The petition stands disposed off.

¶25

Certified copy today.

¶26

Sd/-

¶27

(Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant)

¶28

Judge

¶29

Aadil

Dr. Anil Kumar Henry v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Anil Kumar Henry v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohit Jatwar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Jasvinder Kaur @ Puppy Kaur Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Anr.

Hukaleshwar Sahu Vs State of Chattisgarh

Deenbandhu Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Kaushalendra Rathor Vs Raghunandan Prasad Sharma

Gurdeep Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh