A Mumbai court has denied a UAPA accused permission to travel abroad for a family vacation, citing the reason as too trivial and emphasising the seriousness of the charges against him.
Key Points
- Mumbai court rejects UAPA accused Vaibhav Raut's request to travel to Vietnam for a family vacation.
- Raut, facing charges under UAPA and other acts, was arrested in 2018 in connection with the recovery of crude bombs.
- The court deemed Raut's reason for travel, 'spending happy moments with family', as too trivial.
- Raut's bail conditions restrict him from leaving Mumbai and Vasai-Virar without prior court permission.
A court here has refused to allow a UAPA case accused to go abroad for a family vacation, describing the reason for travel as "too trivial".
Businessman Vaibhav Raut, who is out on bail, had sought permission to visit Vietnam with his wife and children from May 4 to May 25, for spending "happy moments with family".
Additional sessions judge Chakor Baviskar dismissed his plea on March 20.
In the reasoned order, available on Wednesday, the court noted that the application was "sans any sufficient and satisfactory reasons".
Background of the Case
Raut was arrested in 2018 by the Maharashtra Anti Terrorism Squad (ATS) in connection with alleged recovery of crude bombs from a godown at Nalasopara on Mumbai's outskirts.
The businessman is facing trial for charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, Indian Penal Code and the Explosives Substances Act.
While granting him bail, the high court laid down the condition that he shall not leave Mumbai and Vasai-Virar without prior permission of the trial court.
Arguments and Court's Decision
The prosecution opposed his travel plea on the ground that the offences against him were serious in nature.
The accused argued that as a businessman and permanent resident of Vasai-Virar and Mumbai, he posed no flight risk, and intended to return after the tour.
The judge said the reason put forth by the accused -- "spending happy moments with family" -- was "too casual as such and trivial in nature".
The accused was "expected not to take the terms and conditions (of bail) lightly and in a casual approach", the court remarked.
