Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Single Bench of Justice Sumeet Goel permitted an accused, facing trial under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code, to travel abroad for business engagements, subject to specific conditions. The Court set aside the order of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Gharaunda, which had earlier declined such permission. Observing that “courts must not remain in an ‘ivory tower’, but must engage with and adjudicate in consonance with evolving social realities,” Justice Goel held that a practical and balanced perspective should guide decisions on requests by accused persons to travel abroad, ensuring respect for individual liberty while maintaining the integrity of judicial proceedings.

The case concerns a petition filed by an accused seeking permission to travel abroad for business purposes while facing trial in connection with offences registered under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code, including sections relating to cheating, criminal breach of trust, forgery, and conspiracy. The petitioner, a businessman, stated that he was required to visit multiple countries for scheduled business meetings and submitted an itinerary detailing travel to Dubai, Doha, and Turkey between mid-October and early December 2025.

Also Read: Gaps In Investigation, Missing Witness Testimony Led To Doubt’: Supreme Court Acquits Man Accused Of Raping, Robbing And Killing 85-Year-Old Woman

The petitioner had earlier been granted permission by the competent court to travel abroad twice—first to Sharjah in November 2023 and later to Doha in June 2024—and was said to have complied with all conditions imposed on those occasions by returning within the specified period. However, his subsequent application to the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Gharaunda, seeking similar permission was declined through an order dated September 2025. The magistrate observed that the petitioner had not furnished sufficient supporting documents to substantiate his travel plans.

In response, the petitioner approached the High Court with a revised itinerary and additional documentation, asserting that his overseas business meetings were necessary for sustaining his livelihood. He offered to comply with any terms that might be imposed by the Court while granting permission.

The State, through an affidavit submitted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Gharaunda, opposed the petition on the ground that allowing foreign travel could risk the petitioner absconding and make it difficult to secure his presence for trial. The complainant also contested the application, alleging that the invitations and itinerary relied upon by the petitioner were not genuine and had not been presented before the trial court earlier. It was contended that the documents were possibly created after the filing of the initial application. The statutory provisions discussed in the proceedings included Articles 21 of the Constitution and the relevant sections of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, relating to bail and personal liberty.

“No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.” (Article 21 quoted in the discussion of Satwant Singh Sawhney). “If the right to travel is a part of the personal liberty of person he cannot be deprived of his right except according to the procedure established by law.”

In elaborating the right to travel abroad within personal liberty, the Court recorded the principle that any curtailment must be “just, fair and reasonable” and supported by “enacted law,” noting the constitutional framework and binding precedent. “Consequently, any action curtailing this liberty to traverse abroad must not only be just, fair and reasonable but ought to be substantiated by a validly enacted statute.”

The Court discussed the statutory scheme under BNSS for imposing conditions upon grant of bail, including restrictions on leaving India without permission, as prophylactic measures to secure presence and mitigate flight risk during investigation/trial. “One pivotal and frequently stipulated condition is the prohibition on the accused from traversing abroad or leaving the jurisdictional territory of India, without permission of Court.” It described this as aimed to “secure the accused person’s presence and mitigate the substantial risk of flight,” and framed the task as a balance between personal liberty and the administration of criminal justice.

Assessing the present facts, the Court recorded that the FIR was registered in 2018 and that the petitioner had earlier travelled abroad twice (November 2023 and June 2024) for business “which concession has never ever been misused by him,” and that he returned in time. It stated the relevance of business meetings is for the attendees and “ought not to be ordinarily entered into by the Court.” The Court further recorded that nothing was brought to show “likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the…,” leading to the grant of permission subject to conditions.

The Court also referenced decisions where courts have regulated, rather than deleted, prior-permission conditions tied to foreign travel, recognizing the right to travel as valuable yet compatible with judicial oversight during pendency of criminal proceedings. “At best, the condition for seeking permission before travelling abroad could have been regulated, not deleted altogether.”

Also Read: Mere Allegations of Harassment Over Dowry and Childlessness Not Sufficient for Proving Abetment to Suicide: Punjab & Haryana High Court Acquits Mother-in-Law

The Court ordered: “The petition in hand is is allowed and the petitioner is permitted to travel abroad in terms of itinerary spelled out in paragraph No.17 of the petition in hand (ibid).”

The liberty granted “will be subject to such terms and conditions as deemed fit, by the learned trial Court, including but not limited to furnishing a bank guarantee in favour of the trial Court to the tune of Rs.10.00 lacs. There is no gainsaying that in case of the petitioner not returning back in time and/or complying with the conditions imposed by the trial Court, the bank guarantee would be liable to be immediately forfeited, as per law. No disposition as to costs.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Namit Khurana, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana; Mr. Abhijeet Chaudhary, Advocate

Case Title: Jonty Chhag @ Jonty Vinay Chhag v. State of Haryana.
Neutral Citation: 2025:PHHC:147419
Case Number: CRM-M-57206-2025
Bench: Justice Sumeet Goel.