CRL RC/493/2026 of Galla Sreekanth Reddy Vs State Rep. by The Inspector of Police on 1 October 2026

ORDER

The Revision challenges the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Poonamallee refusing permission to the petitioner to travel abroad for the purpose of employment. The petitioner is facing prosecution for the

CRL RC No. 493 of 2026

offences under Sections 354 A, 406, 420, 493, 511 of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, on the complaint given by the second respondent herein.

2. It appears that the petitioner was not present on an earlier hearing before the trial court. Therefore, a non-bailable warrant was issued for his appearance. Thereafter, a look out circular was issued and on his arrival from USA, he was arrested at the airport. He had applied for bail before the learned Sessions Judge and by the order dated 23.10.2025, the learned Sessions Judge had granted bail with a condition that the petitioner shall not leave India without prior permission of the trial Court. The petitioner sought for permission before the trial Court, which came to be dismissed by the trial Court by the impugned order.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is employed in the USA; that if he does not return, he will lose his employment; that he would co-operate with the trial; and would appear on important hearings as directed by the learned Magistrate.

4. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, who would submit that any stringent condition may be imposed on the petitioner to ensure that he does not flee from justice and would co-operate for the conclusion of the trial.

CRL RC No. 493 of 2026

5. My learned predecessor had directed the defaco complainant to be impleaded and the defacto complainant was accordingly impleaded. Notice sent to the defacto complainant/second respondent was returned unserved. Hence, the first respondent was directed to serve notice on the second respondent. It appears that the mother of the defacto complainant, residing in the address shown in the complaint, had refused to receive the notice. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has also produced the copy of the notice and the endorsement that it was refused by the respondent's mother.

6. It is seen from the impugned order that the case is pending investigation from 2020. The trial is yet to commence as the charges have not been framed. This Court is of the view that the right of the petitioner to travel abroad cannot be curtailed indefinitely. At the same time, the petitioner has to co-operate for the trial and cannot be allowed to flee from justice. Hence, the petitioner shall not leave the Country until charges are framed by the trial Court. After the charges are framed, the petitioner shall inform the trial Court the date of his departure, his address at USA and his contact number. He shall appear on all hearings through video conference. Whenever the personal appearance of the petitioner is required by the learned Magistrate, he shall appear in person.

CRL RC No. 493 of 2026

7. On the above conditions, the impugned order is set aside and the Revision is allowed. The learned Magistrate shall frame the charges as expeditiously as possible. The connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 01-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No TSG To

1. The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Poonamallee, Tiruvallur District.

2. The Judicial Magistrate-I, Poonamallee.

3. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court.

CRL RC No. 493 of 2026

SUNDER MOHAN, J. TSG CRL RC No. 493 of 2026 & CRL MP No. 13916 of 2026 01-10-2026