Court says right to travel abroad is not absolute; cites ongoing investigation, unrecovered Indian passport, and risk of non-return despite pregnancy and medical complications
The Delhi High Court has refused permission to an Afghan national, currently on bail, to travel to the United Kingdom and also declined to release her original UK Convention Travel Document, holding that the restrictions were necessary to secure her presence during an ongoing criminal investigation.
Justice Sanjeev Narula dismissed the petition filed by Smt. Simran Kaur, who had challenged the trial court’s order rejecting her request to travel abroad. The petitioner, an Afghan national with refugee status and lawful residence in the UK until 2029, is facing prosecution in connection with allegations that she procured an Indian passport in the name of “Jyoti Chawla” using forged documents and travelled internationally on that passport.
The court noted that the case involves serious allegations directly linked to identity documents and foreign travel. It observed that the original Indian passport had not been recovered and that the investigation was still continuing. In such circumstances, the court held that the apprehension that the petitioner may not return to India if allowed to leave for six months could not be treated as speculative or remote.
The petitioner had argued that she was in the advanced stage of a twin pregnancy conceived through IVF and was suffering from gestational diabetes, hypothyroidism, and pregnancy-related complications. She submitted that she wished to travel to the UK for confinement, delivery, and postnatal care, and that her residence and family ties were there. She also offered to furnish security, disclose her itinerary, and appear through electronic means if required.
Rejecting these submissions, the High Court said that while the constitutional right to health, bodily integrity, and reproductive autonomy is well recognised, it does not create a right for an accused person to insist on medical care in a foreign country of her choice. The court pointed out that no medical opinion had been produced to show that treatment was unavailable in India or that delivery in the UK was medically necessary.
The court also distinguished between release of a travel document and permission to travel abroad. It held that returning the UK Convention Travel Document would not automatically entitle the petitioner to leave India. Since the document was sought mainly to facilitate the proposed journey and the investigation into her identity and travel history remained underway, the court declined to order its release at this stage.
Addressing the petitioner’s offer of safeguards such as an FDR, local surety, and electronic appearance, the court held that monetary security cannot ensure physical availability once an accused is outside Indian jurisdiction. It further observed that the facility of appearance through electronic means cannot substitute for the court’s ability to secure the accused’s presence when needed.
The High Court clarified that there was no inconsistency between granting bail and refusing foreign travel. Bail protects liberty against incarceration, whereas permission to leave the country concerns the court’s ability to ensure the accused’s availability during the criminal process.
At the same time, the court directed the SHO and investigating officer to ensure that the refusal of travel permission does not obstruct the petitioner’s access to necessary medical treatment in Delhi. It also instructed the investigating agency to complete the pending investigation expeditiously.
The petition was dismissed, along with pending applications. The court added that its observations were confined only to the question of foreign travel and would not affect the investigation or trial.
Bottom Line :
Foreign travel by accused on bail - Right to travel abroad, even if assumed available to foreign national under Article 21, is not absolute - Permission to travel can be declined where allegation itself concerns fraudulent procurement and use of Indian passport for international travel, investigation is continuing, original Indian passport is unrecovered, and accused has settled residence abroad creating real apprehension of non-return - Release of foreign travel document also not warranted when sought mainly to facilitate such travel, though it cannot be retained indefinitely once no longer required for investigation.
Statutory provision(s): Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 528, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Sections 318(4), 336(3), 340(2), 319(2), 238, Passports Act, 1967 Section 12, Foreigners Act, 1946 Section 14, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Sections 355, 530, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 192
Smt.Simran Kaur v. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi), (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc id # 2987092
