Madras High Court
CRL RC/2251/2026 of Devdip Ganguli Vs Hemlata Prasad on 1 October 2026
CRL RC No. 2251 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 01-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
CRL RC No. 2251 of 2026
CNR: {HCMA012327782026}
Devdip Ganguli
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. Hemlata Prasad
2. The State Rep by the SHO
Grand Bazar PS through,
its Public Prosecutor,
Pondicherry.
..Respondent(s)
Prayer: The Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C., to set aside the order dated 22.09.2026 in Crl.M.P.No.4 of 2026 in SC.No.90 of 2026 on the file of the III Additional Sessions Judge, Puducherry and consequently permit the petitioner to leave India on 01.10.2026 and to return to India on 15.11.2026.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr.C.A.Diwakar
For Respondent(s):
Ms.Hemalata prasad (P-in -P) for R 1
Mr.A.Alexander,
Government Advocate(Puducherry)
for R2
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
The Revision challenges the order passed by the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Puducherry in Crl.M.P.No.4 of 2026 refusing to grant permission to the petitioner to travel abroad from 01.10.2026 to 15.11.2026.
CRL RC No. 2251 of 2026
2. The petitioner is facing prosecution for the offences under Section 306 IPC in SC.No.90 of 2026. The allegation is that on account of the petitioner’s acts, the victim had committed suicide. The case was taken on file on the complaint given by the first respondent herein. It is reported that the charges are yet to be framed.
3. The petitioner had sought for permission to travel abroad from 01.10.2026 to 15.11.2026. The first respondent had objected to the said prayer on the ground that though the petitioner had earlier travelled abroad on the orders of this Court, no notice was issued to the first respondent and those orders ought not to have been passed without notice to her. The trial Court therefore, dismissed the petitioner’s prayer.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the alleged occurrence took place in the year 2014 and that the petitioner has been residing in the Country ever since then and pursuant to the orders of the Court, he had travelled abroad on several occasions and had returned in compliance with the directions issued by the Court and hence, the apprehension expressed by the first respondent is without any basis and prayed for setting aside the impugned order. The learned counsel would also state that the petitioner had purchased tickets to travel abroad and has produced a copy of the tickets.
CRL RC No. 2251 of 2026
5. The first respondent appeared in person and would oppose the prayer stating that though the petitioner had gone abroad earlier pursuant to the orders of the Court, those orders are illegal as no notice was given to her before passing the order; that now the petitioner is married and his wife is residing in France; that there is possibility of the petitioner not returning to India and that there is a petition filed by the first respondent in Crl.R.P.No.26 of 2026 pending before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Puducherry, seeking cancellation of bail granted to the petitioner.
6. Heard the learned Government Advocate (Pondicherry) for the second respondent.
7. Though the earlier orders passed by the District Judge were passed without notice to the first respondent, admittedly, the first respondent had travelled abroad and returned as per his undertaking given to the Court. In fact, the impugned order notes that the petitioner had left India 12 times pending the case. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the petitioner’s request to travel abroad can be considered as his right cannot be curtailed.
8. However, in order to allay the apprehension expressed by the first respondent, it is desirable that the following conditions are imposed on the petitioner to ensure that the petitioner returns to the County;
CRL RC No. 2251 of 2026
(i) the petitioner shall deposit the title deed of an immovable property of a value of Rs.10,00,000/- either belonging to the petitioner or any of his relatives.
(ii) On filing of such document, the petitioner shall be permitted to travel abroad between 01.10.2026 to 15.11.2026.
(iii) On the petitioner’s return, the petitioner will be entitled to take return of the title document.
(iv) The learned Magistrate shall act on the web copy of the order.
9. The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed on the above terms. 01-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No TSG Note: Issue order copy on 01.10.2026 To
1. The State Rep by the SHO Grand Bazar PS through, its Public Prosecutor, Pondicherry.
2. The III Additional Sessions Judge, Puducherry.
3. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court.
CRL RC No. 2251 of 2026
SUNDER MOHAN, J. TSG CRL RC No. 2251 of 2026 01-10-2026