Delhi Court miffed at man who reached airport before order on plea for permission to travel abroad

Even before a Delhi court could decide the plea of an accused seeking permission to travel abroad, it was informed that he had reached the airport [Rishabh Jain v. State]..Additional Sessions Judge Dharmender Rana was hearing a revision petition challenging a trial court order which had dismissed the man’s plea..“I am constrained to observe that the conduct of the revisionist is very callous and he is taking the process of court of law for granted. The application of the revisionist to travel abroad has been dismissed by the Trial Court and his revision petition is still pending, yet I am informed by the Counsel for the revisionist that the revisionist has already reached the airport, as if outcome of the instant revision petition is a foregone conclusion,” the order stated..On February 1, the Metropolitan Magistrate Court had dismissed the plea of the man, facing trial for offences under Sections 509 (word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman) and 34 (common intention). The judgment subsequently pointed out,“Be that as it may, Trial Court is the master of proceedings in the lis pending before it. Trial Court is in the best position to assess the credentials of the litigants appearing before it and it would be very unsafe for superior courts to substitute its own subjective opinion with the opinion of the Trial Court in the matters relating to the conduct of proceedings before it.”.In the present order, Judge Rana ultimately dismissed the man's plea, highlighting that he had not been able to point out the illegality in the trial court order which had rejected his request.The man, who sought to travel to Dubai, was found to have not placed his tickets on record before the trial court.“Even on earlier occasions, his permission for traveling abroad was declined by the Trial Court on the very same ground and yet the revisionist has opted not to place the tickets on record… It appears that the revisionist is either very casual or he intends to conceal something important from the Trial Court,” underscored the verdict..The man’s counsel earlier argued that the trial court order of February 1 was not sustainable in the eyes of law for it was based on conjectures and surmises. The previous order was stated to have been without any reliance on the documents filed by the man.The man, it was submitted, sought permission to travel abroad to attend a friend’s wedding and being a permanent resident of Delhi, there were no chances of him fleeing from the trial. The hotel bookings were done in the name of the man’s friend, who was travelling with him. Thus, name of the revisionist was stated to have not been mentioned in the booking details.The counsel argued that booking receipts were auto-generated from the website and the man was never asked by the trial court to produce the air tickets and that he was only asked to file the travel itinerary.The additional public prosecutor, on the contrary, submitted that the man’s hotel booking receipts did not mention his name and besides, the wedding was of a friend and not a close relative.After hearing the arguments, the Court found “no occasion" to interfere with the exercise of the discretionary powers of the trial court, and dismissed the revision application..Advocate Yoginder Singh represented the petitioner..[Read Judgment]