Court sets aside Sonipat magistrate’s refusal, says right to travel abroad for livelihood and personal liberty can be protected through strict safeguards including Rs.25 lakh security
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has permitted Himanshu Arora, an accused facing trial in a criminal case in Sonipat, to travel abroad for professional commitments, holding that the right to travel abroad forms part of the fundamental rights to livelihood and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Justice Rajesh Bhardwaj passed the order on May 27, 2026, while allowing a petition challenging the April 13, 2026 order of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonipat, which had refused Arora permission to travel overseas.
Arora is facing trial in FIR No. 339 dated September 24, 2021, registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Sonipat, under Sections 323, 325, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. He had approached the High Court seeking permission to travel from India to Dubai and then to the United States for work-related obligations connected with his employer, Red Hat.
According to the petition, Arora works in a role that requires occasional international travel and his proposed visit was necessary to discharge urgent professional duties. He argued that denying him permission would adversely affect his livelihood and personal liberty. He also submitted that he was ready to comply with any conditions imposed by the Court.
During the hearing, the petitioner’s counsel contended that Arora had earlier travelled abroad in October 2023 due to official duties and that his departure without prior court permission was unintentional, not an attempt to evade trial. He was subsequently declared a proclaimed person after proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were initiated, but that order was later set aside by the High Court in November 2024.
The petitioner further told the Court that after his return to India on an emergency certificate, his passport was impounded by authorities. He had twice sought permission from the trial court to travel abroad, but both applications were rejected.
The State opposed the plea, arguing that the petitioner had earlier misused the concession of bail and there was a genuine apprehension that he might again avoid the judicial process if allowed to leave the country. The prosecution also pointed out that only one out of eight prosecution witnesses had been examined so far and that permitting foreign travel could delay the trial.
After considering the submissions and the record, the High Court noted that the earlier proclamation and warrants against the petitioner had already been recalled by a coordinate bench. The Court observed that, in the facts of the case, the petitioner deserved permission to travel abroad and that his fundamental right could not be curtailed solely because the criminal case was pending.
Setting aside the magistrate’s order, the High Court allowed Arora to travel abroad from June 1, 2026 to July 15, 2026, subject to stringent conditions. These include depositing Rs.25 lakh as security before the trial court, furnishing one local surety bond of Rs.1 lakh, and filing an affidavit undertaking to return to India within the stipulated period and surrender his passport immediately upon return.
The Court also directed the petitioner to provide his complete addresses, phone numbers, and details of movable and immovable properties in India, along with his place of stay and contact details in Dubai and the United States before departure. It clarified that any proceedings before the trial court during his absence, if conducted in the presence of his lawyer, would bind him as though he were personally present.
The High Court further warned that if the petitioner failed to comply with the conditions, the Rs.25 lakh security would stand forfeited to the State. He has been directed to return to India on or before July 16, 2026.
The ruling is significant as it reiterates that the pendency of a criminal trial does not automatically extinguish an individual’s right to travel abroad, particularly where such travel is linked to employment and livelihood, provided adequate safeguards are in place to secure the person’s return and participation in the trial.
Bottom Line:
Fundamental right to travel abroad upheld despite pendency of a criminal case, subject to stringent conditions imposed by the Court.
Statutory provision(s): Article 21 of the Constitution of India, Sections 323, 325, 506, 34 IPC, Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C.
Himanshu Arora v. State of Haryana, (Punjab And Haryana) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2940004
