Seesa Santhosh vs The State Of Telangana

NON-REPORTABLE
2026 INSC 628
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2026
[Arising out of SLP (CRL) No. 18022 OF 2025]


SEESA SANTOSH …APPELLANT
VERSUS
THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND ANR. …RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T
DIPANKAR DATTA, J.
1. Leave granted.
th
2. Challenge is laid by the appellant to the judgment and order dated 28
1
October, 2025 passed by the High Court for the State of Telangana at
2 3
Hyderabad , allowing a revision petition filed by the respondent no.
4
2, under Section 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
5
2023 . The High Court, while allowing the revision petition, set aside
th
the order dated 26 September, 2025 passed by the Principal Sessions
6
Judge, Bhuvangiri in Criminal Revision Petition No. 4 of 2025. The

Signature Not Verified
1
impugned order
2
High Court
3
Criminal Revision Case No. 751 of 2025
4
erstwhile section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
5
BNSS
6
Sessions Judge
Digitally signed by
JATINDER KAUR
Date: 2026.06.04
17:29:32 IST
Reason:
1

Sessions Judge, by the aforesaid order, had set aside an order dated
th
7 May, 2025 passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Principal
7
Judicial Magistrate First Class, at Bhongir disposing of the application
of the respondent no.2 seeking return of his passport.
3. The facts relevant for a decision on this appeal are these. Appellant
th
lodged a complaint on 12 October, 2014 regarding the suspicious
unnatural death of his father. An unnatural death case under Section
8
174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was registered.
Investigation was initiated which culminated in registration of FIR No.
173 of 2014 for offences under Sections 120-B and 306 read with
9
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 . Respondent no.2 was
arrayed as an accused in the said FIR. Chargesheet came to be filed
against the respondent no. 2 under Sections 120-B and 306 read with
th
Section 34, IPC on 29 February, 2016. Respondent No.2 instituted
Writ Petition No.17530 of 2015 seeking quashing of the FIR and
consequential proceedings. In the interim, an application seeking
permission to travel abroad was also made by the respondent no.2,
th
which came to be dismissed on 26 August, 2015. The writ petition
th
itself was subsequently withdrawn on 19 October, 2016. Since the
respondent no. 2 failed to appear before the trial court and did not
engage any lawyer, a non-bailable warrant of arrest and a Look Out

7
Magistrate
8
CrPC
9
IPC
2

10
Circular came to be issued against him. Subsequently, the
respondent no. 2 instituted Criminal Petition No. 14462 of 2016 before
the High Court seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings. Upon an
application made by the respondent no.2, the High Court suspended
th
operation of the LoC by an order dated 14 October, 2016, clarified by
th
order dated 18 November, 2016. Pursuant thereto, the respondent
11
no. 2 left the country in 2017. In the interregnum, another FIR under
Sections 443, 427, 420 and 506 IPC came to be registered against
him. Thereafter, the said petition (Criminal Petition No.14462 of 2016)
seeking quashing of criminal proceedings came to be withdrawn by the
rd th
respondent no. 2 on 23 August, 2023. On 19 April 2025, upon his
return to India, the respondent no. 2 was arrested at the Rajiv Gandhi
International Airport, Hyderabad. Upon release from custody, the
respondent no.2 filed an application before the Magistrate seeking
return of his passport which, as noted above, was disposed of by an
th th
order dated 7 May, 2025 but set aside by the Sessions Judge on 26
September, 2025 while deciding the State’s revision petition.
Thereafter, the respondent no.2 preferred a revision petition before the
High Court, which came to be allowed vide the order impugned herein,
12
permitting him to travel back to the United States of America subject
to certain conditions. It is also pertinent to mention that during
pendency of the present proceedings, the respondent no.2 has also

10
LoC
11
FIR No. 320 of 2021
12
USA
3

filed another Criminal Petition No.1744 of 2025 seeking quashing of
the criminal case.
4. Mr. Parameshwar, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant contended that the respondent no. 2 ought not to be
permitted to travel to the USA until the conclusion of the trial.
Respondent no. 2, according to learned counsel, has consistently
misused the process of law by filing successive petitions and
applications with a view to delay and obstruct the progress of the trial.
While asserting that the respondent no. 2 has suppressed material
facts and proceedings from the Courts, learned senior counsel has
further contented that dismissal of the earlier writ petition, i.e., Writ
Petition No.17530 of 2015, seeking quashing of the criminal
proceedings was not disclosed in the subsequent petitions and
applications made before the High Court. It has further been
contended that the medical certificate is forged. There is nothing on
record to indicate that the respondent no. 2 is suffering from any
medical ailment or condition necessitating his travel to the USA. In
such circumstances, learned senior counsel has submitted that the
condition requiring deposit of the passport is imperative to secure the
presence of the respondent no. 2 and to ensure unhindered
continuation of the criminal proceedings. Accordingly, prayer is made
by him for setting aside the impugned order as well as for restoring
th
the order dated 26 September, 2025 of the Sessions Court.
4

5. Per contra , Mr. Niranjan Reddy, learned senior counsel for the
respondent no. 2 has contended that imposition of a condition
requiring surrender of his passport would amount to an unjustified
curtailment of the fundamental right to travel abroad under Article 21
of the Constitution of India. Learned senior counsel has submitted that
the respondent no. 2 suffered two brain strokes in the year 2023 and
has since been undergoing medical treatment in the USA. Respondent
no.2 is a citizen of the USA and his family also resides there.
Furthermore, the respondent no.2 has extensive business and
properties in India. According to learned senior counsel, the delay in
conclusion of the trial cannot be attributed solely to the respondent
no. 2, inasmuch as the other accused persons had also instituted
petitions seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings. In
continuation, learned senior counsel has contended that the appellant
himself has largely contributed to the delay by seeking further
investigation nearly nine years after registration of the FIR. Before
concluding, learned senior counsel has contended that the order under
challenge is well-considered and well-reasoned and it does not merit
any interference. It has, thus, been prayed that the appeal be
dismissed.
6. We have heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the parties
and perused the material on record.
th
7. To recapitulate, by an order dated 7 May 2025, the Magistrate
directed release of the passport of the respondent no. 2 while clarifying
5

that such release would not, by itself, amount to permission to leave
the country and that the respondent no. 2 would be required to obtain
appropriate permission from the competent court for any foreign
travel. Aggrieved thereby, the State preferred a revision petition before
th
the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court, by its order dated 26
September 2025, reversed the order of the Magistrate and directed
the respondent no. 2 to deposit his passport, having regard to the
prolonged pendency of the matter. The Sessions Court further
recommended to the passport authorities that the movement of the
respondent no. 2 be restricted in accordance with the provisions of the
13
Passports Act, 1967 . Assailing the aforesaid order, the respondent
no. 2 preferred a revision petition before the High Court which has
succeeded. The High Court, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, set
aside the order of the Sessions Court and restored the order passed
by the trial court. In addition thereto, the High Court also permitted
the respondent no. 2 to travel to the USA after committal of the case,
subject to certain conditions. The reason which weighed with the High
Court was that the respondent no.2 had appeared before the
Magistrate on 12 (twelve) previous occasions and that he required
medical treatment in the USA.
8. In the present case, the FIR came to be registered in the year 2014
and the chargesheet was subsequently filed in 2016. As borne out from
the material placed on record, the matter still remains at the stage of

13
Passports Act
6

committal. Thus, despite the lapse of nearly ten years since the filing
of the chargesheet, the trial is yet to commence. Though delay in
criminal proceedings cannot invariably be attributed to the accused
alone, the chronology of events in the present case does evince the
pro-active role of the respondent no. 2 in seeking judicial intervention
at every turn. Since the registration of the FIR, the respondent no. 2
has initiated multifarious proceedings before the High Court, pursuant
to which interim protections were granted from time to time, thereby
impeding the progress of the trial. Furthermore, the conduct of the
respondent no. 2 in withdrawing such petitions before their final
adjudication but after securing interim protection in his favour, raises
serious doubts regarding his bona fides . In particular, the allegation of
the interim protection granted in the year 2016 suspending operation
of the LoC being misused by the respondent no. 2 by leaving the
country without seeking leave of the Court, thereby evading the
criminal process not only in the present case but also in other
proceedings, cannot be simply brushed aside. Be that as it may, we
need not examine this allegation in greater depth since we are of the
considered view that the impugned order is unsustainable for the
reason that follows.
9. The “exigencies of medical treatment to be undergone” by the
respondent no.2 and that “he has appeared before the Magistrate
Court on the last 12 occasions” coupled with his undertaking to return
to India within 6 (six) months were considered good enough reasons
7

by the High Court to interfere in the exercise of its revisional
jurisdiction. Having regard to the trajectory of the proceedings right
from the date the FIR was registered, the conduct of the respondent
no.2, the nature of his ailment, and the medical facilities available in
India (which, we believe, are comparable with any facility available in
any foreign country), we have no doubt in our mind that the High Court
instead of exercising judicial restraint was indulgent towards the
respondent no.2 and permitted him to travel to the USA even though
all medical facilities exist domestically.
10. An argument has been advanced on behalf of the respondent no. 2
that imposing a condition requiring deposit of his passport or
mandating prior permission of the Court before travelling abroad would
amount to an infringement of his fundamental right under Article 21 of
the Constitution. Suffice it to observe that the right to a speedy trial is
equally an integral facet of Article 21. While Article 21 undoubtedly
guarantees the fundamental right to personal liberty, which includes
the right to travel abroad, such right cannot be viewed in isolation. A
balance must be struck between the individual liberty of the
respondent no. 2 on the one hand and the right of the appellant to a
speedy trial together with the larger societal interest in ensuring the
effective administration of criminal justice, on the other. Reference
may be made to the decision of this Court in Rajesh Ranjan Yadav
14
v. CBI where this Court observed:

14
2007 1 SCC 70
8

16. We are of the opinion that while it is true that Article 21 is of great
importance because it enshrines the fundamental right to individual liberty,
but at the same time a balance has to be struck between the right to
individual liberty and the interest of society. No right can be absolute, and
reasonable restrictions can be placed on them. While it is true that one of
the considerations in deciding whether to grant bail to an accused or not is
whether he has been in jail for a long time, the court has also to take into
consideration other facts and circumstances, such as the interest of the
society.
(emphasis ours)
11. Therefore, taking an overall view of the matter, we are of the
th
considered opinion that the order dated 7 May, 2025 passed by the
Magistrate was justified on facts and in the circumstances and did not
require interdiction. The impugned order of the High Court, as well as
the order of the Sessions Judge, is set aside.
12. Parties have not apprised us as to whether the case has been
committed to the court of sessions. If not, we encourage expediting
the process of committal.
13. However, we clarify that while the respondent no. 2 may not deposit
his passport but he shall, at the same time, not be entitled to fly out
of the country except in the manner indicated hereafter. Respondent
no.2 shall be free to approach the Sessions Court, after committal of
the case, for permission to travel abroad, should the need so arise and
should he satisfy the Sessions Court in that behalf. If any application
is presented, the same may be considered on its own merits and in
accordance with law by the Sessions Court. Appropriate conditions
may be imposed, in case the Sessions Court is inclined to grant the
prayer of the respondent no.2.
9

14. In any event, the civil, police and airport administration shall
coordinate with each other to ensure that the respondent no.2 does
not fly out of the country without the express permission of the
Sessions Court referred to above.
15. We also clarify that the observations made in this order will not be
treated as findings on the merits of the case.
16. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of on the aforesaid terms.
17. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.


…………………………..………….J.
(DIPANKAR DATTA)


………………………..…………….J.
(SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA)

NEW DELHI;
JUNE 4, 2026.

10