Summary: Jashanpreet Singh's request to study in Canada was denied by the High Court because of worries about his involvement in a drug case. The court mentioned his previous lack of cooperation with investigations and said his study plans weren't enough to allow him to travel abroad.
Jashanpreet Singh wanted to go to Canada for an Advanced Diploma in Software Development. But the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) wasn't okay with it. They challenged a previous court's decision that allowed him to travel, arguing that he might not come back for his trial. Judge Ajay Digpaul stepped in and stopped the travel plans.
"The right to education doesn't mean you can study in another country while facing charges under the NDPS Act."
The trouble began when a package with 148 grams of opium was stopped in New Delhi, and it was supposed to go to Canada. The package was linked to Jashanpreet, who had sent it using his dad's name. Even though the NCB sent him several notices, Jashanpreet didn't show up to talk to investigators, which led to a Look Out Circular (LOC) being issued.
The NCB, represented by Ms. Shelly Dixit, said that Jashanpreet's past actions showed he might run away. They pointed out that he ignored five notices and was caught trying to leave the country. They also questioned whether he really needed to study in Canada since similar courses were available in India.
"Money can't really make sure someone won't run away if they've ignored the investigating agency before."
Jashanpreet's lawyer, Mr. Sumit Sharma, argued that his client followed all the rules of his bail and spent a lot on his education. They claimed he didn't personally get the notices and had returned from previous trips abroad, showing he wasn't likely to run away.
Judge Digpaul found Jashanpreet's lack of cooperation concerning. The court noted that his study plans seemed fake, especially since his college admission was canceled and then quickly reinstated. The court emphasized that there was no urgent need for him to study abroad when similar opportunities were available in India.
The court canceled the earlier permission for Jashanpreet to travel, highlighting the need for him to be present during the trial. This decision shows the court's careful approach in balancing individual rights with the fairness of the legal process.
"The comments here are only about the travel permission and won't affect the trial in any way."
Jashanpreet remains in India, and his journey through the legal system continues.
