Court grants permission for temporary travel to USA on humanitarian grounds, emphasizing distinction between investigation pendency and necessity of accused's presence
In a significant ruling on September 29, 2026, the Rajasthan High Court has allowed Mahesh Kumar Gupta and others to travel abroad for a limited period despite an ongoing investigation, quashing the trial court's order that had rejected their application and maintained a Look Out Circular (LOC) against them. The petitioners sought permission to travel to the United States to attend to their son scheduled for a surgical procedure.
The case arose from FIR No. 158/2026 registered under various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) at Police Station Gangashahar, Bikaner. The petitioners were already protected from arrest by an earlier order of a coordinate bench of the High Court, which observed that the FIR appeared to be a financial dispute with familial overtones rather than a purely criminal case. The trial court had rejected the application for foreign travel on August 7, 2026, citing the pendency of investigation and apprehension that the petitioners might evade legal process.
The High Court, presided over by Justice Farjand Ali, took a nuanced approach emphasizing that the mere pendency of investigation cannot be an absolute bar to foreign travel, especially when no specific necessity for the petitioners' presence during the investigation was demonstrated. The Court highlighted that the investigation could proceed independently and that the petitioners had expressed willingness to comply with any conditions imposed by the Court.
Significantly, the Court accepted the humanitarian ground advanced by the petitioners regarding their son's medical condition, rejecting the respondent's argument that medical advice was only on an outpatient basis and did not contemplate hospitalization. The Court observed that in the Indian social and cultural context, parents' natural desire to be with an ailing child undergoing surgery is a genuine familial circumstance warranting consideration.
Drawing on precedent from a coordinate bench in Mohammed Sadeeque v. State of Rajasthan (2024), where temporary foreign travel was allowed for attending a daughter's engagement despite ongoing proceedings, the Court reiterated that fundamental rights to personal liberty and familial bonds must be balanced with the interests of justice. The Court underscored that temporary travel, subject to conditions, does not impede investigation or trial processes.
Consequently, the Rajasthan High Court quashed the order of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bikaner, allowing the petitioners to travel abroad for a limited period of four months from the date of immigration checkout. The Court directed the Ministry of External Affairs, immigration authorities, and police to facilitate their travel and not to enforce any Look Out Circulars that could obstruct the passage of the petitioners. The petitioners were not required to furnish bail bonds or sureties as they were protected by interim orders.
This judgment reaffirms the principle that personal liberty, including the right to travel, cannot be unduly curtailed by pending investigations unless there is a tangible risk of evasion or interference with the judicial process. It also underscores the judiciary's sensitivity towards humanitarian considerations within the framework of criminal justice.
Bottom Line:
BNSS, 2023 - Permission to travel abroad during pendency of investigation - Mere pendency of investigation cannot by itself be an absolute bar to temporary foreign travel, particularly when petitioners are protected against arrest and no specific necessity of their personal presence in investigation is shown - Humanitarian ground of attending son undergoing surgical procedure abroad accepted - Order rejecting permission and maintaining Look Out Circular quashed.
Statutory provision(s):
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 528; Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 316(2), 61(2)
Mahesh Kumar Gupta v. State of Rajasthan, (Raj) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2990609
