Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Allahabad Single Bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi has declined a plea seeking permission to travel abroad in a criminal case prosecuted by the Central Bureau of Investigation. The Court held that travel for attending a wedding and subsequent pleasure trip does not amount to an essential purpose warranting relaxation of bail conditions. Consequently, the application seeking leave to visit the United States and France during the trial was rejected. The Court concluded that an under-trial accused cannot claim such permission as a matter of right, especially when the trial is at an advanced stage.

The present matter arose from an application under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) challenging the order dated 24.04.2025 passed by the Special Judge, CBI-5, Lucknow. The applicant faced trial under Case No. 07/2012 emanating from FIR No. RC0062010A0015 registered by the CBI. The offences involved charges under Section 120-B IPC read with Sections 420, 468, 471 IPC and Section 13(1)(d)/13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Also Read: Stamp Vendors are Public Servants under PC Act | Proof of Demand is Sine Qua Non for Conviction | Mere Recovery of Tainted Money Not Enough : Supreme Court

The applicant filed an application before the trial court seeking permission to travel abroad from 03.05.2025 to 22.05.2025. The intended visit was for attending a cousin’s son’s wedding in San Diego, California, USA, and for a subsequent family trip to Paris and Nice, France. According to the applicant, the wedding celebrations were scheduled between 03.05.2025 and 13.05.2025. Supporting the application were travel tickets already purchased for himself and his wife.

The FIR had been lodged in 2010, and a charge sheet was submitted in 2011. Charges were framed for conspiracy and cheating under IPC and misconduct under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Notably, no substantive charge was framed under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) for misuse of position as a public servant.

The trial court noted that statements of 36 prosecution witnesses had been recorded and the matter had progressed to the stage of defence evidence. Furthermore, the trial was among the oldest pending matters and was monitored by the High Court and the Supreme Court under an action plan for expeditious disposal. The trial court apprehended that granting permission to travel abroad could cause undue delay. Thus, it rejected the application.

Before the High Court, counsel for the applicant submitted that he had travelled abroad earlier with permission and had not misused such liberty. It was argued that the absence for 22 days would not affect the proceedings and that travel abroad is a Fundamental Right. Reliance was placed on Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248 and Parvez Noordin Lokhandwalla v. State of Maharashtra (2020) 10 SCC 77.

In Maneka Gandhi, the Supreme Court had examined the issue of impounding of a passport. However, the High Court distinguished the facts, observing that the right to travel abroad was not declared a Fundamental Right in that judgment. Further, the Parvez Noordin Lokhandwalla case was noted to involve different circumstances, including a need to revalidate a Green Card, which was held to be an essential purpose.

The High Court observed that past permissions granted for travel abroad in earlier stages did not entitle the applicant to automatic approval at this crucial stage of trial. The trial, which was nearing conclusion, required uninterrupted progress.

Justice Subhash Vidyarthi recorded: "The right to go abroad cannot, therefore, be regarded as included in freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) on the theory of peripheral or concomitant right."

The Court further stated: "The applicant does not have the right to travel to USA for attending the marriage of his relative and to France to enjoy a family pleasure trip when the trial of the case filed by CBI, in which the applicant is an accused, has reached the stage of defence evidence."

In addition, it was recorded:"An accused person who has been enlarged on bail can be granted permission to travel abroad for some pressing necessity like medical treatment, attending essential official duties and the like. An accused person who has been enlarged on bail cannot seek permission as of right to travel to another country merely for attending the marriage of a relative and having a pleasure trip to another country."

Addressing the contention about previous permissions, the Court observed: "Merely, because the trial Court had earlier granted permission to the applicant to travel abroad for non-essential objects on numerous occasions, he does not get a right to travel abroad for non-essential objects this time also, when the trial has reached the stage of defence evidence."

The Court clarified its power under Section 528 BNSS stating: "This Court’s power is not confined to scrutiny of the reasons assigned by the trial court."

Finally, it concluded: "The trial Court has not committed any illegality in rejecting the application seeking permission for the applicant for his travel to the USA for attending the marriage of a relative and to France to enjoy a family pleasure trip."

Also Read: Limitation Law Applies With Full Rigour | Mistake of Counsel No Automatic Ground for Delay Condonation | Andhra Pradesh High Court Refuses to Interfere with National Commission Order

The High Court, upon careful consideration, concluded that the application seeking permission for the applicant’s travel abroad, along with the application filed under Section 528 of the BNSS, lacked merit and was therefore rejected.

It recorded that the applicant does not possess the right to travel abroad for non-essential purposes at this advanced stage of the trial when the defence evidence is to be recorded. Further, the Court clarified that attending a wedding of a relative in a foreign country and undertaking a pleasure trip to another country do not constitute essential reasons warranting such permission for an under-trial accused.

Consequently, the applicant’s plea to overturn the trial court’s order and secure leave to travel was rejected in its entirety.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Purnendu Chakravarty, Ambrish Singh Yadav, Amit Jaiswal, Ojus Law, Pranjal Jain, Advocates.

For the Respondents: Anurag Kumar Singh, Advocate

Case Title: Aditya Murti v. Central Bureau of Investigation/Anti Corruption Bureau Lko.

Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC-LKO:25135

Case Number: Application U/S 482 No. - 3726 of 2025

Bench: Justice Subhash Vidyarthi

[Read/Download order]