Introduction:

In Chirag Kumar Sardana v. State of Haryana & Another (2025 LiveLaw (PH) 312), the Punjab & Haryana High Court addressed a petition filed by Chirag Kumar Sardana, a sports shooter accused in a pending fraud matter under the Fraud and Arms Acts. An order of the Sessions Court had restricted his passport, preventing him from attending international shooting camps in Europe and the United States. In this case, the bench of Justice Harpreet Singh Brar held that principles of justice must be balanced with compassion and granted Sardana temporary permission to travel abroad for the camp, under strict conditions, until December 31, 2025, requiring him to surrender his passport and appear before the trial court by January 5, 2026.

Arguments on Behalf of the Petitioner (Chirag Kumar Sardana):

Sardana submitted that he is an Indian citizen holding a valid passport, not likely to abscond or evade proceedings. Travel abroad was essential for his professional growth, as participation in high‑level shooting camps in Europe and the USA forms a crucial part of training for elite sportspersons. Denial of this opportunity threatened to derail his career trajectory. He emphasized that restraining his travel on a mechanical basis—without considering personal and professional context—would amount to ignoring the human dimension of justice. Counsel Mr. Arav Gupta argued that the trial court’s restrictive order was rigid and failed to account for mitigating factors like Sardana’s cooperation and clean record regarding appearance before the court.

Respondents’ Position (State / Sessions Court Order):

The State and Sessions Court had placed restrictions on the passport’s validity, citing the gravity of allegations under the Fraud and Arms Act. Concern for safeguarding the interests of the complainant and ensuring presence at trial were prioritized. The limited release of the passport was intended to prevent potential flight risk, maintain the integrity of judicial proceedings, and ensure accountability. Implicit in the earlier orders was apprehension that international travel might frustrate the trial process or harm the interests of justice.

Court’s Judgment:

Justice Brar began by reiterating that “a delicate balance must be struck between the rights of the accused and those of the victim. While accountability and fairness are integral facets of justice, the idea of just justice can only be realised through compassion… justice and compassion are mutually inclusive”. Drawing upon M. Viswanathan v. M/s S.K. Tiles [2010 (4) SCC (Cri) 298], the bench emphasized that inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may be invoked to prevent miscarriage of justice due to undue rigidity. It also referenced Satish Chandra Verma v. Union of India 2019 (2) SCT 741 to underscore that the right to travel is a fundamental human right that fosters autonomy and creative growth and must be respected unless compelling reasons prohibit it.

Assessing the individual circumstances, the Court found that Sardana posed no flight risk, had not evaded any proceedings, and had ample reasons to visit foreign training camps that would significantly benefit his sporting career. It saw no justification in denying reasonable travel purely on procedural grounds. Given the conclusion of the international camp on December 31, 2025, the Bench granted limited and conditional release of the passport. It mandated that Sardana must appear before the concerned trial court on or before January 5, 2026, and that he would not seek any extension. After this date, he is to surrender his passport and resume participation in the legal process. The plea was accordingly allowed, enabling him to attend the shooting camp while upholding judicial oversight.