Punjab and Haryana High Court Eases Travel Restrictions for Matrimonial Offense Accused, Court Reduces Financial Conditions for Ankit Hastir, Allows Travel Abroad with Modified Surety Requirements
In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has eased travel restrictions for Ankit Hastir, an accused in a matrimonial offense case under Section 498A IPC, allowing him to travel abroad with modified financial conditions. The judgment, delivered by Justice Neerja K. Kalson on April 2, 2026, addressed the balance between the accused's right to personal liberty and the need to ensure his presence during trial proceedings.
The court was petitioned to review the conditions imposed by the trial court, specifically the requirement for a bank guarantee or cash surety of Rs. 25 lakhs and an affidavit regarding maintenance arrears. The petitioner argued that the financial conditions were excessively onerous and rendered the permission to travel abroad illusory.
Justice Kalson recognized the fundamental right of personal liberty, including the right to travel, and emphasized that conditions must not be so burdensome as to negate the granted permission. The court found the original surety amount of Rs. 25 lakhs excessive, given the accused's financial capacity and the nature of the case. Consequently, the court modified this condition, reducing the required surety to Rs. 10 lakhs with one additional surety of the same amount.
While the court acknowledged the complainant's apprehensions about the accused potentially evading legal proceedings, it maintained that some financial safeguard was justified. The surety amount is liable to forfeiture if the petitioner fails to return to India within the stipulated time or violates any terms of the granted permission.
Regarding the affidavit condition for maintenance arrears, the court upheld this requirement, stating it merely ensured compliance with existing court orders and did not impose new liabilities. The court clarified that this condition applies only to maintenance amounts already determined by a competent court and does not bar travel due to pending disputes, although compliance with interim or final orders is mandatory.
The court's decision partially allows the petition, modifying the financial conditions while maintaining other trial court-imposed conditions. The ruling reiterates that permission to travel abroad is discretionary, and any violation of conditions may result in permission cancellation and forfeiture of security.
Bottom Line:
Conditions imposed while granting permission to travel abroad under matrimonial offence cases must strike a balance between the accused's right to travel and the complainant's interests, ensuring they are reasonable, proportionate, and not excessively onerous.
Statutory provision(s): Section 498A IPC
Ankit Hastir v. State of Punjab, (Punjab And Haryana) : Law Finder Doc id # 2878663
