The Delhi High Court held that a condition requiring prior permission for foreign travel cannot be sustained when there is no subsisting bail condition, no cognizance taken and no summons issued, modifying it to a requirement of prior intimation at least two weeks before travel. The judgment clarifies the scope of Article 21 restrictions during criminal proceedings.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, Rajnish Gupta and Nisha Gupta, challenged a condition imposed by the Trial Court requiring them to obtain prior permission before any foreign travel, despite the Look Out Circular (LOC) against them having been rescinded.
Key Facts
-
The CBI registered RC No. 2202022E0001 on the complaint of Punjab National Bank concerning allegations of cash-credit facility extended by the bank to M/s Skyworld Exim.
-
Investigation culminated in filing of a charge sheet dated 31.03.2023 under Sections 120-B/420/468/471 IPC against petitioner Rajnish Gupta.
-
A supplementary charge sheet dated 23.06.2023 was filed against petitioner Nisha Gupta.
-
The petitioners were not arrested during investigation; cognizance has not been taken and no summons have been issued.
-
During investigation, an LOC was opened against the petitioners.
-
Vide order dated 30.04.2024, the learned Trial Court found continuation of the LOC unjustified and rescinded the same.
-
However, the Trial Court directed that the petitioners shall not leave the country without obtaining its prior permission.
Procedural History
-
31.03.2023: Charge sheet filed against Rajnish Gupta under Sections 120-B/420/468/471 IPC.
-
23.06.2023: Supplementary charge sheet filed against Nisha Gupta.
-
30.04.2024: Trial Court order rescinding LOC but imposing prior permission condition for foreign travel.
-
24.09.2026: Date of judgment of the High Court.
The Parties' Positions
For the Petitioners
The petitioners submitted that the investigation is complete, the charge-sheet was filed without arrest, cognizance has not been taken and no summons have been issued. They contended that there is no subsisting bail condition restricting foreign travel and that the impugned condition amounts to a continuing restraint on the right to travel abroad guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. They relied on the judgment of this Court in Karti P. Chidambram v. Central Bureau of Investigation, BAIL APPLN. 573/2018 to argue that the object of a condition requiring prior permission for foreign travel is to secure the presence of the accused, and where circumstances so warrant, the same may be achieved by requiring prior intimation instead of prior permission.
For the Respondent
The learned SPP for the CBI opposed the application, submitting that the condition was imposed to secure the petitioner’s availability during the criminal proceedings. It was contended that the allegations involve serious economic offences and that the requirement of prior permission constitutes a reasonable safeguard against the petitioners evading the proceedings. Reliance was placed upon the Supreme Court’s judgment in Seesa Santosh v. State of Telangana and Anr., 2026 SCC Online SC 1071.
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought suspension of the condition imposed vide order dated 30.04.2024, which required them not to leave the country without prior permission of the Court.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the imposition of a condition requiring prior permission for foreign travel, in the absence of any subsisting bail condition, cognizance, or summons, constitutes a reasonable restriction on the right to travel abroad under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioners
The petitioners argued that the investigation had culminated in the filing of charge sheets without arrest, that cognizance had not been taken and no summons issued, and that they had cooperated with the investigation. They asserted that there was no existing bail condition restricting foreign travel, and thus the continued requirement of prior permission amounted to an unjustifiable restraint on their personal liberty under Article 21. They relied on Karti P. Chidambram v. CBI to contend that the purpose of such a condition is to secure the accused’s presence, which could equally be served by prior intimation.
For the Respondent
The CBI maintained that the condition was a reasonable safeguard to ensure the petitioners’ availability for trial, given the serious nature of the alleged economic offences. It argued that the requirement of prior permission was proportionate and necessary to prevent evasion of proceedings, relying on Seesa Santosh v. State of Telangana.
The Court's Analysis
The Court observed that the material on record showed that cognizance had not been taken, no summons had been issued, and the charge sheet had been filed without arrest. There was no evidence of non-cooperation or default by the petitioners. Significantly, while rescinding the LOC, the Trial Court itself had recorded that the petitioners had joined the investigation and that the issuance of the LOC was not justified. The continued requirement of obtaining prior permission for every foreign visit, therefore, called for examination, particularly when there was presently no subsisting bail condition requiring such permission.
The Court held that the right to travel abroad forms part of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. Restrictions upon such liberty may undoubtedly be imposed where warranted by law and necessary to secure the presence of an accused. However, the restriction must be reasonable in connection with the purpose. In the present case, the petitioners were not arrested during investigation, the charge sheet had already been filed, cognizance was yet to be taken, and no default on their part was shown. Having observed so, while rescinding the LOC, there was no occasion with the Trial Court to impose any condition, and thus the requirement of obtaining prior permission for every foreign visit during the pendency of the trial could not be sustained.
The Court further noted that the continued imposition of such a condition could cause procedural hardship and undue restriction on the liberty of the petitioner, despite there being no instance of misuse of liberty. Such condition, therefore, could not be sustained.
The Verdict
The petitioners succeeded in part. The Court modified the condition in the order dated 30.04.2024 requiring the petitioners not to leave the country without prior permission to the extent that petitioners shall be required to intimate/inform the learned Trial Court and the investigating agency/respondent of his full travel itinerary, duration of travel, place(s) of stay and contact details at least two weeks prior to each foreign travel. At the same time, they shall remain available to participate in the proceedings as and when required and shall not seek adjournment on account of such travel. All other directions contained in the order dated 30.04.2024 shall remain unaffected. The petitions along with the pending application(s) stand disposed of in the above terms.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Prior Permission May Be Replaced by Prior Intimation
When there is no subsisting bail condition, no cognizance taken and no summons issued, a condition requiring prior permission for foreign travel is not justified. Courts should consider whether prior intimation of travel details suffices to secure the accused’s presence.
Liberty Restrictions Must Be Tied to a Concrete Purpose
Any restriction on the right to travel abroad under Article 21 must be shown to be necessary and proportionate to securing the accused’s availability for trial. Absent a demonstrable risk of evasion, such restrictions cannot be sustained.
Procedural Hardship Invalidates Overbroad Conditions
Even if a condition is initially justified, its continued imposition becomes untenable if it causes undue hardship without a corresponding increase in risk, particularly when the accused has cooperated with investigation.
