Gravity of corruption charges and risk of absconding outweigh personal interest in granting permission to travel abroad.

The applicant, a 75-year-old retired Joint Director of Medical Education, is an accused in a Vyapam Scam case (Crime No. RC 2172015 A0025) involving allegations of corruption, forgery, and illegal admissions in 2012

Granted bail in 2018 on the condition of surrendering his passport, the applicant later obtained his passport for renewal and secured a US visa following a High Court order in April 2025

He applied to the Trial Court for a three-month travel permit to visit his son and newborn granddaughter in Texas, USA

The Trial Court rejected the application on November 14, 2025, citing the seriousness of the trial and a risk of absconding

The applicant challenged this rejection via Section 482 CrPC/Section 528 BNSS

1. Whether the Trial Court’s refusal to grant permission for international travel was arbitrary or failed to account for the applicant's fundamental right to travel abroad

2. Whether personal/familial reasons for travel outweigh the State’s interest in ensuring the presence of the accused in a high-stakes criminal trial involving public scams

The court considered the fundamental right to travel abroad as established in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), which mandates that such rights can only be curtailed by a fair and reasonable procedure

Satish Chandra Verma v. Union of India (2019) supports the right to travel, its application depends on the peculiar facts of the case, specifically the nature of the prosecution

the court also invoked its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC / Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) to evaluate the legality of lower court orders

The High Court observed that while the applicant has complied with bail conditions since 2018, the gravity of the accusations involving "large-scale irregularities," conspiracy, and abuse of official position cannot be ignored

The court found that the CBI’s apprehension regarding the difficulty of securing the applicant's presence once he leaves Indian jurisdiction was well-founded, despite the applicant's ties to Bhopal

The court further reasoned that the applicant failed to provide property details to mitigate the flight risk

Crucially, the court held that the desire to visit a newborn grandchild, while personally significant, does not constitute a "compelling or unavoidable circumstance" that justifies overriding the public interest in the administration of criminal justice in a serious scam case

The Court answered that the seriousness of the criminal charges and the potential for evasion of the trial process outweigh the applicant's personal desire to travel

The request for permission to travel to the USA was denied