InBail Appln. 809/2015 -DEL HC- ‘Right to travel abroad is subject to reasonable restrictions in criminal cases’: Delhi High Court rejects man's plea to waive condition of seeking prior permission to travel abroad
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma [26-09-2023]

Read Order:Nikhil Kant Syal V. State of NCT of Delhi

Chahat Varma

New Delhi, September 27, 2023: The Delhi High Court has rejected man’s plea to waive the condition of seeking prior permission from the Trial Court to travel abroad, which was imposed as a condition of his anticipatory bail. The Court emphasized that the fundamental right to travel abroad, especially in cases where an individual is facing criminal charges, is not an absolute right and is subject to reasonable restrictions.

In the matter at hand, the applicant/accused was granted anticipatory bail in a case arising out of an FIR registered under Sections 406/409/467/468/471/120B of the Indian Penal Code. However, as a condition of his bail, he was required to deposit his passport with the Trial Court and seek the court's approval before leaving the country.

The applicantargued that despite more than 15 years having passed since the registration of the FIR, the Investigating Officer has not filed a charge-sheet against the applicant. It was further stated that the applicant's wife and two children are British Nationals residing in London, United Kingdom. The condition imposed by the court, requiring the applicant to seek permission each time he wants to visit his family, poses a significant hardship on him. Additionally, he was involved in the real estate business and was exploring business opportunities abroad, which required his presence overseas.

The single-judge bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma considered the seriousness of the allegations against the applicant, which involved multiple victims and a criminal conspiracy related to misappropriating funds.

The bench also noted that there had been no complaints from the applicant regarding the denial of permission to travel abroad on previous occasions.

Thus, given the entirety of the facts and circumstances surrounding the case, the court decided that, at this point, it was not inclined to waive the condition that had been imposed on the applicant.