Permission to travel abroad may be denied if potential for absconsion outweighs the right to personal liberty.

The applicant is an accused in two FIRs (Crime Nos. RC0082025S0018 and RC0082025S0019) registered by the CBI for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 r/w 120B of the IPC, the IT Act, and the Prevention of Corruption Act.

The allegations involve the submission of forged bank guarantees to M.P. Jal Nigam for multi-village schemes.

Though the applicant was granted anticipatory bail on June 1, 2026, his subsequent application to travel to the USA for three months to renew his temporary Green Card (expiring November 11, 2026) was dismissed by the Special Judge (CBI), Indore on June 16, 2026.

The applicant challenged this dismissal under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.

1. Whether the trial court was justified in denying the applicant permission to travel abroad given the stage of the trial and his personal ties to the USA.

2. Whether the fundamental right to travel abroad under Article 21 can be restricted to ensure the effective administration of criminal justice.

The Court applied Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.

While Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees the right to travel abroad, this right must be balanced against the right to a speedy trial and the societal interest in effective criminal justice administration.

Reasonable restrictions, such as the deposit of a passport or requiring court permission to travel, do not inherently infringe upon fundamental rights when balanced against the risk of absconsion.

The Court observed that the charges against the applicant are grave, specifically mentioning Section 467 of the IPC which carries a potential sentence of life imprisonment.

The Court reasoned that since the applicant’s wife and children reside in the USA and he holds a Green Card, the risk of absconsion is significant, especially as the trial is at the commencement stage.

The Court rejected the necessity of physical travel for family contact, noting that the applicant could communicate via video calls or his family could visit India.

Applying the Seesa Santosh doctrine, the Court determined that the individual’s liberty must yield to the larger interest of ensuring the accused remains available for trial.

The Court "spurned" the request for permission to travel to the USA and dismissed the application.