Court says prior permission for every overseas trip was unnecessary; petitioners need only inform trial court and CBI two weeks in advance
The Delhi High Court has modified a trial court’s condition that barred two accused persons from leaving India without prior permission, holding that such a restriction was not justified in the absence of any misuse of liberty or non-cooperation during investigation.
Justice Ravinder Dudeja passed the order on petitions filed by Rajnish Gupta and Nisha Gupta, who had challenged the condition imposed by the trial court on 30 April 2024 while rescinding a Look Out Circular (LOC) issued against them in a CBI case. The accused had sought removal of the requirement that they obtain prior permission before travelling abroad.
The case arose from an FIR registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation on a complaint by Punjab National Bank concerning alleged irregularities in cash-credit facilities extended to M/s Skyworld Exim. The CBI filed a charge sheet against Rajnish Gupta under Sections 120-B, 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, and a supplementary charge sheet was later filed against Nisha Gupta. Importantly, neither of the petitioners was arrested during investigation, and cognizance has not yet been taken by the trial court.
The High Court noted that the petitioners had cooperated with the investigation and that there was no material suggesting default or evasion on their part. It also observed that the trial court itself had found no justification for continuing the LOC. In these circumstances, the High Court said, there was no basis to continue a blanket requirement of prior permission for each foreign trip.
The Court emphasized that the right to travel abroad is part of the right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. While restrictions can be imposed to secure the presence of an accused during criminal proceedings, such restrictions must be reasonable and proportionate to the purpose they seek to achieve.
Relying on these principles, the Court held that the impugned condition caused unnecessary procedural hardship. Instead of prior permission, the petitioners were directed to merely intimate the trial court and the investigating agency about their full travel itinerary, duration of stay, places of stay and contact details at least two weeks before travelling abroad. They were also directed to remain available for proceedings and not seek adjournments on account of such travel.
The Court clarified that the order was passed in the peculiar facts of the case and should not be treated as a precedent. The petitions were accordingly disposed of with the modification of the travel condition.
Bottom Line :
Right to travel abroad is part of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. Conditions restricting such liberty must be reasonable and necessary to secure the presence of the accused during criminal proceedings.
Statutory provision(s): Article 21 of the Constitution of India, Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Sections 120-B, 420, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
Rajnish Gupta v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc id # 2985218
