Nilesh Patel Vs State of Hp

¶1

Nilesh Patel Vs. State of HP

¶2

Cr.MP No. 2264 of 2026 in CR.MP(M) No. 361 of 2024.

¶3

09.06.2026 Present : Mr. Ashwani K. Sharma, Advocate, for the applicant.

¶4

Mr. Sushant Kaprate, Additional Advocate General for the non-applicant/State.

¶5

By means of the instant application filed

¶6

under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sahinta, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’), indulgence of this Court has been sought to permit the applicant to visit abroad w.e.f. 11^th June, 2026 to 1^st July, 2026 in relaxation to the conditions passed by this Court, while deciding Cr.MP(M) No 361 of 2024, dated 12.7.2024.

¶7

Vide order dated 12.7.2024, the bail application filed by the present applicant under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., for the grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No. 14 of 2024, dated 2.2.2024 registered at Police Station Barotiwala, District Solan, H.P., under Sections 285, 336, 337, 338, 304-A, 308, 304 Part II of IPC and Section 92 of Factories Act, 1948 was allowed on the following terms and conditions:

¶8

“a. they shall make themselves available for the purpose of interrogation, if so required and regularly attend the trial Court on each

¶9

and every date of hearing and if prevented by any reason to do so, seek exemption from appearance by filing appropriate application; b. they shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor hamper the investigation of the case in any manner whatsoever;

¶10

c. they shall not make any inducement, threat or promises to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or the Police Officer; and

¶11

d. they shall not leave the territory of India without the prior permission of the Court or I.O.”

¶12

Now by way of instant application, condition

¶13

No. (d) of the order dated 12.7.2024, has been sought to be relaxed, in order to undertake professional visits abroad i.e. (i) visit to Bulgaria from 12.6.2026 to 17.6.2026 as mentioned at page No. 165 of the paper book; (ii) visit to Italy from 18.6.2026 to 24.6.2026 at page No. 166 of the paper book and lastly (iii) to visit France from 25.6.2026 to 30.6.2026, at page No. 167 of the paper book (Annexure A-2 colly.) to attend the business meetings in the aforesaid Countries. It has been prayed in the application that pursuant to the order passed by this Court in Cr.MP(M) No. 361 of 2024, dated 12.7.2024, he has obeyed and abide by all the terms and

¶14

conditions and he has not flouted any of the same in any manner.

¶15

It is the case of the applicant that he is seeking indulgence of this Court to attend the business meetings in the aforesaid Countries to discuss potential cooperation and gain an understanding of essential oil manufacturing operations and research activities etc. with effect from 11.6.2026 to 1.7.2026

¶16

It is averred that the applicant is permanent resident of the address mentioned in the memo of parties and he has deep roots in the society being the respectable person and responsible citizen of the Country. It is averred that the applicant undertakes that after returning to India he shall abide by all the terms and conditions which-soever, shall be imposed by this Court.

¶17

This Court issued notice to the State on 4.6.2026 and pursuant thereto, the respondent-State has placed on record copy of the status report. In the status report, a prayer has been made that in case the applicant is allowed to travel abroad, there is every likelihood of his absconding.

¶18

Right to travel abroad has been held to be a basic human right by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Satish Chandra Verma Vs. Union of India, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 2048.

¶19

The Hon’ble Apex Court in the said judgment has held that right to travel abroad is an important basic human right for it nourishes independent and self-determining creative character of the individual, not only by extending his freedoms of action, but also by extending the scope of his experience. The right also extends to private life; marriage, family and friendship are humanities which can be rarely affected through refusal of freedom to go abroad and clearly show that this freedom is a genuine human right.

¶20

Similar view has again been taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Parvez Noordi Lokhandwalia Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2020) 10 Supreme Court Cases 77.

¶21

It is not the case of the respondent-State that the present applicant in pursuance to the grant of anticipatory bail has not cooperated with the prosecution and has violated the terms and conditions, which have been imposed by this Court.

¶22

Further, it is not the case of the respondent-State that the applicant is not having roots in the society and that he is not having movable and immovable property in the State of Himachal Pradesh or in any other State in India.

¶23

Mr. Ashwani K. Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant has specifically and categorically stated that the present applicant is having his factory at Baddi and landed property at Ratlam, State Madhya Pradesh. He further submits that after conclusion of the said business trip, the applicant shall come back to India and shall report to the police officials. The application as filed is duly supported by an affidavit.

¶24

If the facts and circumstances of the case are seen, in the light of the aforesaid decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and in the attending facts and circumstances of the case, the applicant is able to make out a case in his favour and accordingly the applicant is permitted to visit Bulgaria, Italy and France w.e.f. 11.6.2026 to 1.7.2026 subject to the following conditions:

¶25

(I) That the applicant shall furnish bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 8,00,000/-(rupees eight lakhs only) with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Additional Registrar/Deputy Registrar of this Court/Trial Court within two days by giving

¶26

a solemn undertaking to return to the Country and report to the learned Trial Court on 2.7.2026 at 10:00 AM.

¶27

(ii) That the applicant shall not visit any other place, except, for which, the permission has been granted.

¶28

It goes without saying that the applicant shall abide by all the other conditions, imposed by this Court, while deciding Cr.MP(M) No. 361 of 2024 dated 12.7.2024.

¶29

The application stands disposed of in the above terms.

¶30

( Romesh Verma) Vacation Judge

¶31

June 09, 2026 (Guleria)

Nilesh Patel v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nilesh Patel v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kritika Chandel and Another Vs State of Hp and Others

Gaytri Dutt and Ors. Vs UOI and Others

Rajinder Kumar Alias Rajinder Kumar and Ors. Vs UOI and Others

Jagatjit Singh Kohli Vs Ayana Rana and Ors.

Virendra Chauhan Vs State of Hp and Others

Balvinder Singh Vs the State of Hp and Others