Disposed¶9

Amit Lakhani v. State of Hp

Himachal Pradesh HC5 Mar 2026CRMP/625/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Dr. Amit Lakhani v. State of H.P.; Cr.MP No. 625 of 2026 in Cr.MP(M) No. 2380 of 2023; Rakesh Kainthla, Judge; 05.03.2026; permission to visit abroad during pendency of trial; relaxation of condition imposed by Court; charge-sheet filed; consideration of charge on 14.05.2026; competence of Trial Court vs. High Court to grant travel permission; presence of accused and fair trial; application disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Direction that the learned Trial Court shall in future decide the applicant's applications for permission to visit abroad, keeping in view the status of the trial and the requirement of the petitioner's presence during the trial; the present application stands disposed of accordingly. ¶9

Amit Lakhani Vs State of Hp — Himachal Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶9

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner may be permitted to leave India / visit abroad during the period specified in the application, i.e., whether the presence of the petitioner would be required or whether his leaving India during that period would interfere with the fair trial. +1 more

¶6

Court's answer

Since the charge-sheet has been filed before the Court, the learned Trial Court is in the best position to decide whether the presence of the petitioner would be required or whether his leaving India during the period specified in the application would interfere with the fair trial.

¶6

Ratio / Principle

In future, the learned Trial Court shall itself decide the application(s) for granting permission to the applicant to visit abroad, keeping in view the status of the trial and the requirement of the petitioner's presence during the trial.

¶7

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Single-Judge order (Rakesh Kainthla, Judge; 05.03.2026) disposing of Cr.MP No. 625 of 2026 filed in Cr.MP(M) No. 2380 of 2023 by Dr. Amit Lakhani, who sought permission to visit abroad during the period specified in his application, subject to a condition earlier imposed by this Court and an earlier refusal by the learned Trial Court to exercise discretion on the ground that only this Court could relax it. Per the status report, the charge-sheet had been filed and charge consideration stood fixed for 14.05.2026; the Court accordingly held the learned Trial Court best placed to decide whether the petitioner's presence was required or whether his leaving India during the specified period would interfere with the fair trial, and ordered that in future the Trial Court itself shall decide applications for permission to visit abroad, keeping in view the status of the trial and the requirement of the petitioner's presence during the trial. Application disposed of. Respondent: State of H.P. (Ms. Ragini Dogra, Adv. for the applicant/petitioner; Mr. Ajit Sharma, Dy. AG for the State).

Amit Lakhani v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Lakhani 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

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vikas Rana Vs State of Hp

Rajesh Kumar Vs State of Hp

Poonam Sharma Vs State of Hp and Others

Dhruv Vashist Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Aakash Thakur Vs State of Hp

Yogesh Kumar Vs State of Hp