The order was passed by a bench of Justices Krishna Murari and Ahsanuddin Amanullah on a plea by one Senthilkumar P, a business process outsourcing (BPO) professional based in Tamil Nadu.
He moved the Court claiming that he is not Shivakumar, who is named in the FIR lodged in connection with a case of facilitating conversion of international voice over internet protocol (VOIP) calls to local ones.
The same caused a loss of revenue of ₹2.5 crore for the Union government, the complaint alleged.
Pertinently, the petitioner invoked the ‘right of progeny’ stating that his wife and he are undergoing fertility treatment and, therefore, they need to be in each other’s company for 4-6 months to ensure pregnancy.
“The Court recognised the four Purusharthas as mentioned in the Upanishads as fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In the present case, the petitioner is not to be denied the relief of Anticipatory Bail for this reason among other strong reasons. There is no clarity in the prosecution case even as regards the name of the petitioner. The petitioner is not ShivaKumar and has never been known as Shivakumar and he has been added as Shivakumar in the present FIR.“
The petitioner relied on an April 2022 decision of the Rajasthan High Court in Nand Lal, in which it was held that the right or wish to have progeny is available to a prisoner. The same was upheld by the top court.
Source: Barandbench
