Accused On Bail Has No Inherent Right To Travel Abroad For Pleasure Or To Attend Relative's Marriage: Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court has observed that an accused who has been enlarged on bail cannot seek permission as of right to travel abroad merely to attend a relative's wedding and have a pleasure trip. A bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi emphasised that an accused cannot claim an automatic right to travel abroad for non-essential purposes merely because such permission was granted to...
The Allahabad High Court has observed that an accused who has been enlarged on bail cannot seek permission as of right to travel abroad merely to attend a relative's wedding and have a pleasure trip.
A bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi emphasised that an accused cannot claim an automatic right to travel abroad for non-essential purposes merely because such permission was granted to him earlier.
“An accused person who has been enlarged on bail can be granted permission to travel abroad for some pressing necessity like medical treatment, attending essential official duties and the like…wedding of a relative in a foreign country and pleasure trip to another country are not at all essential purposes for an under-trial accused person's visit abroad,” the bench remarked.
With this, the single judge rejected a plea by one Aditya Murti, booked under various provisions of the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act, challenging an order of the Special CBI Judge, Lucknow, refusing him nod to travel abroad.
The accused, Murti, sought permission to travel to the U.S. to attend the wedding of his father's sister's grandson (great-nephew) and subsequently wished to visit Paris and Nice, France, before returning to India.
The trial court, refusing his plea, observed in its order that the progress of the case against the accused is being monitored by the High Court as well as by the Supreme Court and in such circumstances, if he is allowed to travel abroad, it might cause unwarranted delay in the disposal of the matter.t
Before the HC, his counsel argued that there is no possibility of the applicant not coming back to face the trial and that the trial has been continuing for the past 15 years, and the absence of the applicant for merely 22 days will not make a significant difference.
It was also contended that the applicant has a Fundamental Right to travel abroad and that on numerous occasions earlier, he was permitted to undertake such travel.
Having heard the counsel for the accused, the bench, at the outset, noted that the proceedings against the applicant have been initiated by an FIR lodged by the CBI and the trial Court, which has reached the stage of defence evidence, has charged him for commission of offences under Section 120-B read with Section 420 I.P.C. and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The Court further referred to Allahabad HC's decision in Jitendra v. State of UP 2022 wherein it was held that a person who has been arrested and released on bail subject to the conditions imposed by the Court, remains subject to the directions issued by the Court and he shall be deemed to be in constructive custody of the Court.
“Therefore, the applicant does not enjoy the full liberties of a free man and reasonable restrictions can be imposed upon his freedom, including the restriction of his going out of the Country,” the bench remarked.
Against this backdrop, the single judge opined that when the trial has reached the stage of defence evidence, the applicant does not have the right to travel to the USA to attend the marriage of his relative and to France to enjoy a family pleasure trip.
With this, his application was dismissed.
Appearances
Counsel for Applicant: Purnendu Chakravarty, Ambrish Singh Yadav, Amit Jaiswal Ojus Law, Pranjal Jain
Counsel for Opposite Party: Anurag Kumar Singh
Case title - Aditya Murti vs. Central Bureau Of Investigation/Anti Corruption Bureau Lko 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 159
Case Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 159