Right to travel abroad under Article 21 must yield to the interest of an effective, speedy trial.

The appellant lodged a complaint in 2014 regarding his father’s suspicious death, leading to an FIR against Respondent No. 2 under Sections 120-B and 306/34 of the IPC.

Since 2015, the Respondent engaged in multifarious litigation, including withdrawn quashing petitions and an unauthorized departure from India in 2017 after the High Court suspended a Look Out Circular.

Upon his return in 2025, he was arrested and subsequently sought the return of his passport to travel to the USA for medical treatment.

The Magistrate allowed the release of the passport subject to travel permission ; however, the Sessions Court reversed this, ordering the passport's deposit.

The High Court then set aside the Sessions Court's order, permitting travel to the USA based on the respondent’s medical condition and previous court appearances.

The appellant challenged this indulgence.

1. Whether the High Court was justified in exercising its revisional jurisdiction to permit the accused to travel abroad despite a history of evading process and the availability of domestic medical facilities.

2. Whether the restriction on the right to travel abroad constitutes an unjustified infringement of Article 21 of the Constitution in the context of a pending criminal trial.

The Court applied Section 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 (formerly Section 401 CrPC) regarding revisional powers.

It relied on the fundamental right to personal liberty and travel under Article 21 of the Constitution, balanced against the right to a speedy trial and societal interests.

It further applied the principle from Rajesh Ranjan Yadav v. CBI, which mandates that individual liberty is not absolute and must be balanced against the interests of society and the effective administration of justice.

The Court observed that despite a decade passing since the chargesheet, the trial remained at the committal stage, largely due to the Respondent's "pro-active role" in seeking interim protections and subsequently withdrawing petitions.

It noted that the Respondent had previously misused judicial indulgence to leave the country and evade process.

The Court critiqued the High Court for failing to exercise judicial restraint, noting that the Respondent’s medical conditions could be treated within India, where facilities are "comparable with any facility available in any foreign country".

The Court reasoned that the right to travel must be balanced with the appellant’s right to a speedy trial and the need to ensure the Respondent’s presence during criminal proceedings.

The Court held that while the Respondent need not deposit his passport, he is strictly prohibited from flying out of India without express permission from the Sessions Court following the committal of the case.

The Court directed the civil, police, and airport administrations to coordinate to prevent his departure and clarified that any future travel application must be strictly scrutinized on its own merits by the Sessions Court.