Introduction:

In a significant ruling, the Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition by HU Xiaolin, a Chinese national implicated in the notorious Power Bank Scam, seeking permission to travel back to China to visit her ailing father. Justice M. Nagaprasanna, presiding over the case, underscored the stringent provisions of the Chinese Criminal Code that restrict accused individuals from leaving China until their trial concludes. This case raises essential questions about balancing humanitarian considerations with the imperative of ensuring justice.

Arguments of Both Sides:

HU Xiaolin, represented by Advocate Suhaib Fazeel Madar, argued that her father, aged 80, is bedridden and undergoing medical treatment in China, necessitating her presence. She contended that the Kerala High Court, where she faces similar charges, had previously permitted her to travel to China and return. Xiaolin stressed that denying her request would deprive her of the chance to be with her father during his final days, urging the court to modify the bail conditions.

The prosecution, represented by HCGP Harish Ganapathi and Deputy Solicitor General of India H. Shanthi Bhushan, strongly opposed Xiaolin’s plea. They highlighted that seven crimes were registered against her and her husband in the Power Bank Scam, emphasizing that allowing her to leave India would likely result in her evading justice. They pointed out that the ongoing investigation is complex and spans beyond Karnataka, making her presence in the country crucial for concluding the trial.

Court’s Judgement:

Justice M. Nagaprasanna, after careful consideration, dismissed HU Xiaolin’s petition. The court noted that similar requests to modify bail conditions had been previously rejected by both the sessions court and a coordinate bench of the High Court. The judge highlighted that the intricate nature of the crimes meant that the investigation was still ongoing, with police yet to file a charge sheet. Granting Xiaolin permission to leave the country, the court reasoned, would impede the progress of the investigation and trial.

Furthermore, the judgment referenced the stringent exit restrictions under the Exit and Entry Administration Law of the People’s Republic of China, which prevent accused individuals from leaving the country. Justice Nagaprasanna asserted that Indian laws cannot be made flexible to accommodate the petitioner’s request, especially considering the gravity and number of charges against her. The ruling emphasized the importance of ensuring that accused individuals do not escape the clutches of the law, reinforcing the necessity of her presence for the trial’s conclusion.