Courts may permit an accused to travel abroad for employment during trial subject to safeguards.

The petitioner was granted bail on 17 February 2020, subject to a condition that he would not leave the territorial jurisdiction of the NCT of Delhi without prior permission of the concerned court.

During the pendency of the proceedings, the Trial Court directed that he could not leave India without prior permission and his passport was sought to be seized.

The condition was subsequently relaxed by the High Court on 4 November 2024, permitting the petitioner to approach the Trial Court for permission to travel abroad for educational purposes.

On an earlier occasion, the petitioner had been permitted to travel to Canada to pursue studies at Sheridan College, Ontario, subject to conditions including furnishing an undertaking, depositing his passport upon return, furnishing an FDR of ₹2,00,000, providing his Canadian address and mobile number, and appearing through video conferencing when directed.

The petitioner complied with those conditions and returned to India after completing the course.

The present proceedings were at the stage of prosecution evidence.

The petitioner sought permission to travel to Ottawa, Canada, to join employment as a “Junior System Administrator” with Connect Mandarin pursuant to an offer letter dated 17 April 2026.

He had obtained a work visa valid until 31 December 2027.

The Trial Court rejected his request on 13 May 2026.

Whether the petitioner should be permitted to travel abroad during the pendency of the criminal proceedings, notwithstanding the existing bail and passport-related restrictions?

Whether appropriate safeguards and conditions could adequately protect the prosecution and complainant’s interests and ensure the petitioner’s continued participation in the trial?

The Court applied the principle that a condition restricting an accused’s travel during the pendency of criminal proceedings is subject to relaxation by the competent court upon consideration of the facts and circumstances, provided that the accused’s presence and the effective conduct of the trial are sufficiently secured.

The Court relied on the procedural safeguards earlier imposed in the petitioner’s case—undertaking, security deposit, disclosure of address and contact details, surrender of passport upon return, and video-conferencing participation—as appropriate mechanisms for balancing the petitioner’s personal and employment interests against the requirements of the pending trial.

No specific statutory provision or precedent was cited in the judgment.

The Court considered that the petitioner had previously been granted permission to travel abroad and had complied with all the conditions, including returning to India after completing his studies.

This prior compliance weighed in favour of permitting the proposed travel.

The petitioner had a genuine employment opportunity in Canada and a work visa valid until 31 December 2027.

At the same time, the Court addressed the complainant’s concern regarding possible delay by requiring the petitioner to undertake to participate through video conferencing, not dispute his identity, and appear physically whenever specifically directed.

The requirement to furnish an affidavit, deposit original FDRs of ₹5,02,697, and provide his Canadian address and mobile number supplied additional assurance that he would remain amenable to the jurisdiction of the Trial Court.

On this balance, the Court found it appropriate to relax the travel restriction.

He was directed to submit the original affidavit of undertaking and original FDRs before the Trial Court, and to provide his Canadian address and mobile number.

Upon compliance, the Trial Court was directed to release his passport.

The petitioner was required to abide by the terms of his undertaking, and the petition was disposed of accordingly.