Skip to content


Ms Anupriya Yadav vs.state (Govt Nct of Delhi) & Anr - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtDelhi High Court
Decided On
AppellantMs Anupriya Yadav
RespondentState (Govt Nct of Delhi) & Anr
Excerpt:
.....judge whereby the petitioner’s prayer to issue ‘no objection certificate’ for issuance of pass-port and visa was declined.2. i have heard the petitioner present in person and the learned app and have examined the file. on perusal of the file, it reveals that vide order dated 22.04.2016, the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail. she was directed not to leave the area of ncr without express permission of the court, except in emergent situation. in emergent situation, she will intimate crl.m.c.4106/2016 page 1 of 2 and seek further permission from the court through her authorized representative/counsel to leave the area of ncr. admittedly, no condition has been imposed by the trial court at the time of grant of anticipatory bail not to travel abroad during the pendency of the.....
Judgment:

$~25 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI DECIDED ON : NOVEMBER04 2016 CRL.M.C. 4106/2016 & Crl.M.A.17146/2016 MS ANUPRIYA YADAV ........ Petitioner

Through :... Petitioner

present in person. versus STATE (GOVT NCT OF DELHI) & ANR ........ RESPONDENTS

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG Through : Mr.Arun Kr.Sharma, APP. SI Jaibir Singh, PS Farsh Bazar. + S.P.GARG, J.

(ORAL) 1. Present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner to challenge the legality and correctness of an order dated 18.10.2016 of learned Additional Sessions Judge whereby the petitioner’s prayer to issue ‘No Objection Certificate’ for issuance of pass-port and visa was declined.

2. I have heard the petitioner present in person and the learned APP and have examined the file. On perusal of the file, it reveals that vide order dated 22.04.2016, the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail. She was directed not to leave the area of NCR without express permission of the Court, except in emergent situation. In emergent situation, she will intimate Crl.M.C.4106/2016 Page 1 of 2 and seek further permission from the court through her authorized representative/counsel to leave the area of NCR. Admittedly, no condition has been imposed by the Trial Court at the time of grant of anticipatory bail not to travel abroad during the pendency of the trial. The petitioner was directed to take prior permission, in case she intended to travel out of the country. The impugned order clearly states that the Trial Court was not supposed to issue any kind of NOC in favour of accused for issuance of pass-port or visa to her. The petitioner was given liberty to approach the concerned authority directly for the purpose of issuance of pass-port or visa.

3. I find no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order. It is again made clear that the petitioner will be at liberty to approach directly the competent authority for the purpose of issuance of pass-port or visa as per rules/law.

4. 5. The petition and all pending application(s) stand disposed of. Order dasti. (S.P.GARG) JUDGE NOVEMBER04 2016 sa Crl.M.C.4106/2016 Page 2 of 2


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //