The Madras High Court has reaffirmed that the fundamental right to travel abroad cannot be indefinitely suspended merely because an individual is facing pending criminal proceedings. In a significant affirmation of personal liberty under Article 21, the Court permitted a petitioner to undertake a religious pilgrimage abroad despite four pending FIRs, provided he submitted a binding undertaking and furnished surety.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Maqbool John Abdul Nabi, sought permission to travel to the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia for a two-month religious pilgrimage. Four FIRs had been registered against him since 2011, but one case resulted in acquittal, one was pending trial, and two remained without a final report despite over a decade having passed. The Metropolitan Magistrate had denied his request to travel, citing potential disruption to investigation and trial.
Procedural History
- 2011: Four FIRs registered against the petitioner
- 2024: Petitioner obtained passport issuance via W.P.No.28097 of 2024, ordered by the Madras High Court
- December 2025: Metropolitan Magistrate dismissed Crl.M.P.Nos.15860 and 15863 of 2025, denying travel permission
- January 2026: Criminal Revision Petitions filed before the Madras High Court challenging the Magistrate’s order
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought vacation of the Magistrate’s order and permission to travel abroad for two months, supported by an undertaking affidavit dated 19.01.2025, wherein he committed to return to India on or before 26.03.2026.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the right to travel abroad under Article 21 of the Constitution can be indefinitely restricted solely on account of pending criminal proceedings, absent evidence of flight risk or obstruction of justice.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Senior Counsel Mr. T. Gowthaman argued that the petitioner had consistently cooperated with investigations for over eleven years, had been acquitted in one case, and that the state had failed to file final reports in two cases despite the lapse of time. He relied on Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India to assert that any restriction on movement must be reasonable, procedurally fair, and proportionate. The undertaking affidavit, he submitted, was a sufficient safeguard against non-appearance.
For the Respondent
Government Advocate Mr. S. Balaji contended that the pendency of three cases, including one in trial, justified the restriction. He argued that allowing travel might prejudice the investigation and trial process, particularly since the state had not yet concluded its probe in two matters. He cited general principles of criminal procedure to justify precautionary measures.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the balance between the state’s interest in ensuring the presence of an accused and the individual’s fundamental right to liberty and movement. It noted that the petitioner had not absconded, had complied with all prior court directions, and had been granted a passport by this Court itself in 2025 - a fact that implied prior judicial satisfaction regarding his reliability.
"The right to travel abroad cannot be curtailed indefinitely."
The Court emphasized that mere pendency of cases, without any indication of evasiveness or risk of tampering, does not justify a blanket denial of travel. It observed that the state’s failure to file final reports in two cases after 15 years undermined the urgency of its objection. The Court further held that the petitioner’s undertaking, coupled with a substantial bond and sureties, provided an adequate legal mechanism to ensure his return.
The Court distinguished this case from those involving accused persons with a history of non-appearance or attempts to evade process. Here, the petitioner’s conduct over eleven years demonstrated cooperation, not concealment.
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded. The Madras High Court allowed the revision petitions and permitted the petitioner to travel abroad between 26.01.2026 and 26.03.2026, subject to execution of a bond of Rs.1,00,000 with two sureties and a mandatory return appearance before the Magistrate.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Travel Restrictions Require Proportionality
- Practitioners must now argue that prolonged travel bans in pending cases require specific, documented evidence of flight risk - not merely the existence of FIRs
- Courts must conduct a proportionality analysis between the nature of the offence, duration of pendency, and the individual’s conduct
- A history of compliance with court orders should weigh heavily in favor of granting travel permissions
Undertaking Affidavits Are Legally Credible Safeguards
- An undertaking affidavit with a fixed return date, when coupled with a financial bond and sureties, constitutes a valid substitute for physical custody
- Courts may no longer dismiss such affidavits as "mere assurances" without evaluating the petitioner’s track record
- This precedent strengthens applications for travel in cases involving medical emergencies, educational commitments, or religious obligations
State’s Delay Undermines Restrictive Orders
- Unexplained delays in filing final reports or concluding trials weaken the state’s justification for restricting liberty
- Courts will now scrutinize whether the state has acted diligently - prolonged inaction cannot be used to justify continued deprivation of rights
- Practitioners should highlight delays in case progression as a factor favoring liberty
