Right To Travel Abroad A Facet Of Personal Liberty; Courts Must Adopt A Pragmatic Approach To Travel Requests By Accused: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The High Court was hearing a petition filed under Section 482 CrPC by an accused seeking permission to travel abroad for a specified period, asserting that there was no attempt to evade trial and that necessary conditions could be imposed to secure his return.

A Bench comprising Justice Sumeet Goel referred to precedents of the Supreme Court on the inseparable nexus between personal liberty and the right to travel and observed that “the right to travel abroad, has, through the efflux of time and the exigencies of modern life, become so profoundly entrenched and inextricably interwoven with the daily affairs of an individual that it is now an indispensable facet and an ineluctable corollary of the fundamental right to life & liberty, as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution.”

Advocate Namit Khurana represented the petitioner, while Additional Advocate General, Haryana, Tarun Aggarwal appeared on behalf of the respondents.

Background

The petitioner was arraigned as an accused in a criminal case and sought leave to travel abroad for professional reasons. The request was declined by the Trial Court, leading to the invocation of the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court.

The petitioner submitted that he had cooperated throughout the investigation and trial, had never violated bail conditions, and was willing to furnish security to the satisfaction of the Court. It was argued that the continued prohibition against foreign travel amounted to an unreasonable restriction on the fundamental right to personal liberty.

The State opposed the plea, contending that permitting foreign travel could hamper the ongoing proceedings and create a risk of absconding, asserting that the seriousness of the allegations warranted caution. The State argued that hardship or inconvenience alone cannot justify interference with the trial court order.

Court’s Observation

The Punjab & Haryana Court referred to the constitutional mandate of Article 21 and reiterated that personal liberty cannot be curtailed unless the restriction satisfies the test of reasonableness. Referring to judicial precedents, the Bench observed that the right to travel abroad is not merely a statutory entitlement but is a facet of the liberty of the individual.

The Bench held that requests by accused persons to travel outside India must be evaluated realistically, emphasising that courts cannot be oblivious to the current social realities where individuals travel abroad frequently for education, work, family, or medical purposes.

The Court stated that denying such permission despite adequate safeguards would amount to an unnecessary and disproportionate restriction, observing that a pragmatic view is required, not a mechanical rejection. It was further held that the nature of accusations, past conduct of the accused, cooperation with the investigation, and availability of sureties are relevant considerations.

Stressing that it is for the Courts to effectuate a delicate and judicial balancing act, the Bench further remarked that “this equilibrium must be maintained between the fundamental right of the undertrial/accused to pursue his legitimate affairs, both personal and professional & the collective interests of the society and the prosecution to ensure the unwavering presence of the accused before the trial Court, thereby preventing a fait accompli where justice is, frustrated.”

The Bench found that in this case, the petitioner had complied with all conditions imposed earlier, had not attempted to evade proceedings, and was willing to furnish security. The Court held that imposing appropriate conditions would sufficiently secure the administration of justice.

Conclusion

Allowing the petition, the Punjab & Haryana High Court permitted the accused to travel abroad for the period sought, subject to conditions including furnishing of personal bonds, sureties, disclosure of itinerary, deposition of passport upon return, and appearance before the Trial Court as and when required. The petition was accordingly allowed.

Cause Title: Jonty Chagg @ Jonty Vinay Chagg v. State of Haryana (Neutral Citation: 2025:PHHC:147419)

Appearances

Petitioner: Advocate Namit Khurana

Respondents: Additional Advocate General, Haryana, Tarun Aggarwal, Advocate Abhijeet Chaudhary

Click here to read/download Judgment