Mere pendency of investigation does not bar temporary foreign travel absent a demonstrated need for the accused’s personal presence.

An FIR alleging offences under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 316(2) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, was registered against the petitioners.

While their challenge to the FIR remained pending, a coordinate Bench had granted them protection from arrest.

The petitioners sought permission to travel to the United States to attend to their son, who was scheduled to undergo surgery, and submitted medical documents, passports and a confirmed itinerary.

The Magistrate rejected their application and maintained the Look Out Circular, citing the pending investigation and the risk of their leaving India.

The petitioners challenged that order under Section 528 of the BNSS.

Whether the Magistrate’s refusal to permit the petitioners’ temporary foreign travel, based principally on the pendency of the investigation and apprehension that they might evade the legal process, should be set aside

Whether the petitioners’ travel could be permitted subject to conditions, and whether the Look Out Circular could be acted upon to prevent that travel

Section 528 of the BNSS provides the jurisdiction invoked by the petitioners to seek relief from the High Court.

The Court applied the principle, drawn from Mohammed Sadeeque v. State of Rajasthan, that an accused’s personal liberty includes the right to travel and maintain significant family bonds, and that travel may be allowed subject to conditions addressing any genuine risk of evasion.

The Court also distinguished protection from arrest from immunity from investigation: investigation may continue in accordance with law, but its pendency alone does not establish that an accused’s physical presence is necessary or that temporary travel would obstruct it.

The Court noted that the petitioners already had protection from arrest and that the investigation could continue while they were abroad.

No material showed that their personal presence was required during the investigation or that temporary travel would prejudice it.

It also rejected the contention that the son’s outpatient medical advice was insufficient to justify the parents’ travel, observing that hospitalisation was not a prerequisite for their wish to attend to him before surgery.

Applying the approach in Mohammed Sadeeque, the Court concluded that the stated family circumstances justified travel, with a four-month limit and an undertaking to return addressing the relevant concern.

The petitioners were permitted to travel abroad for up to four months from their immigration check-out; an undertaking to that effect was held sufficient, and no bail bonds or sureties were required.

The Court directed the Ministry of External Affairs, immigration and police authorities not to obstruct their travel and ordered that any Look Out Circular against them not be effectuated to impede it.