Safiya Malik

The High Court of Jharkhand Single Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi has relaxed bail-related travel restrictions on a petitioner, the wife of a former Jharkhand MLA and Minister, by directing release of her passport and enabling her to seek permission to travel to the United States of America or the United Kingdom for treatment of advanced liver disease. The Court modified an earlier bail order passed on 13 May 2014 that had required surrender of the passport and barred travel abroad, in a case arising from allegations of accumulation of disproportionate assets and related offences, investigated by the CBI. It directed the petitioner to file an undertaking detailing each proposed trip, obtain prior permission for every travel, and inform the court upon return.

The petitioner filed a criminal miscellaneous petition seeking modification of conditions imposed in a prior bail order passed in 2014. She had been granted regular bail in proceedings arising out of allegations relating to disproportionate assets and offences under the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act. An Enforcement Directorate case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act was also registered. As part of the bail conditions, she had surrendered her passport and was restrained from leaving the country without prior permission.

Also Read: Criminal Proceedings Cannot Be Invoked To Interdict An Arbitral Award: Supreme Court

The petitioner submitted that she had complied with all bail conditions and had cooperated with the trial. It was stated that out of more than 100 witnesses, 46 had been examined. She relied upon medical records, including a liver biopsy report dated 25.06.2025 from the Institute of Liver and Biliary Sciences, New Delhi, indicating Stage 4B cirrhosis under the Laennec classification with autoimmune hepatitis and primary biliary cholangitis overlap. She sought release of her passport to travel to the United States of America or the United Kingdom for medical treatment. The respondent opposed the plea, submitting that the conditions were imposed in view of the allegations in the disproportionate assets case.

The Court recorded that the medical reports were from a reputed institution and noted that the petitioner was suffering from cirrhosis, stating that “the finding is there that the petitioner is having Cirrhosis (Probable underlying etiology autoimmune hepatitis and Primary biliary cholangitis overlap) and Laennec cirrhosis substage-4B as per liver biopsy.”

Referring to the right to travel abroad, the Court quoted from the Supreme Court precedent in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and Satish Chandra Verma v. Union of India, and recorded: “The right to travel abroad is an important basic human right for it nourishes independent and self-determining creative character of the individual, not only by extending his freedoms of action, but also by extending the scope of his experience.” It further noted the observation: “Freedom to go abroad has much social value and represents the basic human right of great significance.”

The Court observed that the petitioner had not been convicted and was facing trial. It recorded: “Admittedly, at present the petitioner has not been convicted. The petitioner is facing trial and she wants to travel abroad for her medical treatment.”

While considering the aspect of possible flight risk, the Court reproduced the Supreme Court’s reasoning that “there is no reason or justification to deny him the permission which has been sought to travel” and that lodging of an FIR “should not in itself prevent him from travelling.”

The Court also noted the absence of allegations regarding non-cooperation, observing that there was no allegation that the petitioner had failed to cooperate in the trial or attempted to influence witnesses. It recorded that she had deposited her passport pursuant to the earlier bail order and that the request was for modification of that condition in light of her medical condition.

The Court concluded that the right to travel abroad is a fundamental right and recorded that “For the aforesaid facts, reasons and analysis and considering that the petitioner is having ailment of Cirrhosis which is at of stage 4B and to travel abroad is the fundamental right of the petitioner and that has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satish Chandra Verma and Maneka Gandhi (supra) and in that view of the matter, the order dated 13.05.2014 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in B.A No.3581 of 2014 can be modified further.”

Also Read: Not Every Discrepant Campaign Statement Amounts To Corrupt Practice: Jharkhand High Court Dismisses Election Petition, Upholds Sindri MLA’s Election In 2024 Polls

The Court directed that “the learned Court shall release the passport in favour of the petitioner” and required that she file “an undertaking before the learned Court to the effect that at the time of leaving the country for each time for how many days she will travel abroad and when she will return back to India, she will inform the Court.”

“The passport shall be released to the petitioner with condition that she will apply before the concerned Court for permission for each travel.  If the conditions made herein above will not be fulfilled by the petitioner, the learned Court will be at liberty to take appropriate steps against the petitioner. This petition is allowed in above terms and disposed of.”

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioners: Mr. Ajit Kumar, Senior Advocate; Ms. Neha Mehta, Advocate; Ms. Akriti Shree, Advocate; Ms. Aprajita Bhardwaj, Advocate

For the Respondents: Mr. Prashant Pallav, A.S.G.I.; Ms. Shreya Shukla, A.C. to A.S.G.I.

Case Title: Madhu Singh v. The State of Jharkhand through Central Bureau of Investigation

Neutral Citation: 2026: JHHC:2777

Case Number: Cr.M.P. No. 1829 of 2025

Bench: Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi