The Bombay High Court has affirmed that the right to travel abroad is an integral facet of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution, even for individuals facing serious criminal charges. This ruling clarifies that bail conditions imposing travel restrictions must be reasonable, proportionate, and grounded in concrete risk assessment - not automatic or punitive.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicant, Nikhil Rajendra Chandarana, is facing prosecution under Sections 326, 324, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code for alleged acts of violence and criminal intimidation. He was granted bail on 4th January 2023, subject to the condition that he shall not leave India without prior court permission. He now seeks permission to travel to Singapore for a short, time-bound business trip from 4th to 6th February 2026.
Procedural History
- The applicant approached the Magistrate for permission to travel, but the application was not taken up.
- Faced with urgency, he filed an interim application before the Bombay High Court under its criminal appellate jurisdiction.
- The applicant submitted an affidavit detailing a prior instance of approved international travel to South Africa (6 - 12 June 2024), during which he deposited ₹30,000 as security and returned as scheduled.
- The State and the complainant did not oppose the application.
Relief Sought
The applicant seeks permission to travel to Singapore for a period of three days, subject to reasonable conditions, including deposit of security and submission of travel details.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the right to travel abroad can be categorically denied to a person on bail merely due to the nature of the accusation, or whether such restriction must be justified by specific risk factors under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The applicant’s counsel argued that:
- The right to travel is a recognized component of personal liberty under Article 21, as affirmed in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India.
- The applicant has a proven track record of compliance: he previously traveled to South Africa with court permission, deposited security, and returned on time.
- Blanket restrictions on international travel without individualized assessment violate the principle of proportionality.
- The proposed trip is brief, for legitimate business purposes, and poses no flight risk.
For the Respondent
The State and the complainant did not oppose the application. The State’s counsel conceded that the applicant had not violated any bail condition and that the request was reasonable.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the balance between the state’s interest in ensuring the accused’s presence during trial and the individual’s fundamental right to liberty. It emphasized that bail conditions must not be arbitrary or excessive.
"The right to travel abroad is considered to be a facet of the right to life guaranteed under Section 21 of the Constitution of India."
The Court noted that the applicant had previously complied with a similar condition, demonstrating reliability. The nature of the charges, while serious, did not inherently indicate a propensity to abscond. The Court rejected the notion that any criminal accusation, regardless of severity, justifies an automatic ban on international travel.
It further held that reasonable conditions - such as depositing security, submitting travel itineraries, and furnishing passport copies - are constitutionally permissible safeguards that protect state interests without infringing on liberty.
The Court also underscored that procedural compliance, such as filing affidavits and sharing details with the Investigating Officer, ensures accountability without imposing undue burden.
The Verdict
The applicant succeeded. The Court held that the right to travel abroad is protected under Article 21 and may not be denied without a reasoned assessment of flight risk. The applicant was permitted to travel to Singapore under specified conditions, including a ₹50,000 security deposit and submission of detailed travel documentation.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Travel Restrictions Must Be Proportionate
- Practitioners must challenge blanket bail conditions prohibiting international travel as violative of Article 21.
- Courts cannot impose such restrictions merely on the basis of the offence’s gravity; a case-specific risk analysis is mandatory.
- Denial of travel without evidence of past non-compliance or flight risk is arbitrary and unconstitutional.
Security Deposit as a Reasonable Safeguard
- Deposit of monetary security is a valid, constitutionally acceptable alternative to outright prohibition.
- The amount must be proportionate to the risk and the accused’s financial capacity - exorbitant deposits may be struck down.
- Refund mechanisms must be clearly stipulated and honored upon return.
Documentation as a Tool for Accountability
- Courts may require affidavits detailing foreign itineraries, contact details, and passport copies without violating privacy.
- Sharing such documents with the Investigating Officer ensures transparency without constituting undue surveillance.
- Practitioners should proactively prepare and file these documents to avoid delays in travel applications.
