Risk of Absconsion Outweighs Personal Liberty When Accused Is a Foreign Resident in Serious Fraud Cases

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

The applicant was previously granted anticipatory bail.

He subsequently moved an application before the Special Judge (CBI) seeking permission to travel to the USA for three months to renew his temporary Green Card, which is set to expire on November 11, 2026.

The Special Judge dismissed the application on June 16, 2026, citing the risk of absconsion as the applicant's family resides in the USA.

The applicant challenged this dismissal before the High Court 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 based on the potential risk of absconsion given his family ties and residency status in the USA.

2. Whether the applicant's fundamental right to travel abroad under Article 21 outweighs the state's interest in the effective administration of criminal justice and the prevention of flight from justice.

Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 (corresponding to Section 482 of CrPC).

Article 21 guarantees the right to travel abroad, it is not absolute and must be balanced against the right to a speedy trial and the societal interest in effective criminal justice as held in Seesa Santosh v. The State of Telangana & Others (2026 INSC 628).

Section 467 of the IPC, which carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.

The Court observed that the nature of the accusations—specifically the submission of forged bank guarantees to the M.P. Jal Nigam—is serious.

It emphasized that the trial is currently at the stage of commencement, making the presence of the accused vital.

The Court reasoned that because the applicant holds a Green Card and his entire family (wife and children) resides in the USA, the risk of him fleeing the jurisdiction is substantial, especially since he faces potential life imprisonment under Section 467 of the IPC.

Following the Seesa Santosh doctrine, the Court held that individual liberty must be balanced against the integrity of the judicial process.

The Court dismissed the necessity of travel for family contact, suggesting that the family could visit India or communicate via video call.

The risk of absconsion and the severity of the charges outweighed the applicant’s personal requirement to renew his Green Card.

The M.Cr.C. was rejected, and the prayer to travel to the USA was denied.