INTRODUCTION TO PERMISSION TO TRAVEL ABROAD

Bail is an integral component of the Indian justice system, which operates on the well-established principle that jail is the exception and bail is the rule. The object of granting bail to the accused is to preserve his personal liberty while simultaneously ensuring his presence during the course of the trial. The court, while granting bail to an accused, imposes certain conditions, one of the most prevalent being the restriction on travelling abroad or the surrender of the passport. Such conditions are imposed to mitigate flight risk, prevent tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, ensure the effective conduct of the trial by avoiding undue delays, and having regard to the gravity of the offence.

However, with the increase in cross-border professional and personal engagement in a globalised world, situations frequently arise wherein an accused, while on bail, seeks permission to travel abroad for legitimate purposes. An application to travel abroad is not a fresh application for bail but one seeking temporary relaxation of a bail condition for a specific period. The trial court, being the court that granted bail, is best suited to assess the conduct of the accused, the nature of the offence, and the likelihood of misuse of liberty. Such permission is not an absolute right and remains subject to the discretion of the court.

A Lookout Circular (LOC) is an administrative measure employed by Indian authorities to restrict individuals facing criminal proceedings from leaving the country. Agencies like the Enforcement Directorate, CBI, Police authority, customs and immigration often deploy LOCs, to ensure suspects remain available for legal processes. Although a significant impediment, an LOC does not constitute an absolute prohibition on international travel. For relaxation from these measures the aforesaid permission is required.

CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS OF THE RIGHT TO TRAVEL ABROAD

Permission to travel abroad while on bail involves a delicate balance between the fundamental right to personal liberty and the interests of the administration of justice. The right to travel abroad has been recognized as a facet of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

The expression “personal liberty” is of wide amplitude and includes the right to travel abroad. The Court further observed that any restriction on this right must be just, fair, and reasonable, and must conform to the procedure established by law as explained by Hon’ble Supreme Court The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India.

Even prior to this, the Supreme Court held in Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D. Ramarathnam, Assistant Passport Officer [1967], that no person can be deprived of his right to travel abroad except in accordance with the procedure established by law. The Court recognized that the right to go abroad forms an integral part of personal liberty and cannot be curtailed arbitrarily.

Accordingly, the courts may impose or relax the conditions related to foreign travel so that trials to be conducted smoothly. The courts exercise such discretion to strike balance between constitutional guarantees and the necessity of securing the ends of justice.

WHEN LIBERTY MEETS LAW: LEGAL FRAMEWORK GOVERNING TRAVEL RESTRICTIONS

Statutory authority to impose restrictions on travelling abroad of an accused originates from combination of procedural and special legislations. Under the BharatiyaNagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the court while granting bail are empower to impose such conditions which they feel necessary to secure the presence of the accused during trials. These conditions include direction to surrender the passport and restriction to travel abroad. This power is reinforce by the Passport act, 1967, particularly in section 6 and 7 of the aforesaid act as it authorize the refusal, revocation and impounding of the passport if there is some criminal proceedings are pending on accused which is subject to procedural safeguard.

In the cases which involve serious economic and transnational offences under special statutes such as the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, the NDPS Act, 1985, court exercise with high caution while granting bail and imposing travel restrictions owing to the gravity of offences and risks involved.

MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS FOR A FOREIGN TRAVEL APPLICATION

An accused seeking permission to travel abroad must fulfil certain mandatory requirements. Permission is generally granted only for pressing necessities such as medical treatment, education, or essential professional obligations. Travel for leisure or social functions is ordinarily not considered a valid ground, as held by the Allahabad High Court in Aditya Murti v. CBI (2025).

Where the trial reaches the crucial stage, courts are reluctant to permit foreign travel as it may cause delay or disruption in disposal of the case. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India does not confer an absolute right to travel abroad especially when an accused is in criminal trial.

In XXX case at a district court Delhi, the applicant referred to the judgment of Maneka Gandhi but the permission was not granted as there was lack of itinerary. It was held in the order that a detailed itinerary is required for the application to be allowed. The itinerary shall mention the country where the person needs to visit. Multiple destinations may weigh against the grant of permission. The one who needs permission also has to deposit amount in Rupees in the trial court as security.

Moreover, Court doesn’t rely solely on the past permissions, each application must be assessed individually, considering the current stage of trial and surrounding circumstances. The accused must satisfy the trial court that he or she will return back to the country otherwise the application shall be dismissed as it was observed in the case of IndraniMukerjea where Hon’ble Bombay High Court denied the permission to travel abroad stating that there is no guarantee you will come back.

LIBERTY UNDER SCRUTINY: FOREIGN TRAVEL IN ECONOMIC OFFENSE MATTERS

In the cases involving serious economic crimesthe courts have nevertheless, granted permission to travel abroad where the accused or the applicant demonstrate genuine purpose or offers adequatesafeguard. In case of SrutiVijaykumar v. FalgunYogendra Shroff, the Bombay High Court held that an accused person in a significant economic offense case i.e. Rs30 crores customs duty evasion could be granted permission to travel abroad. The court reasoned that the mere pendency of an investigation or a criminal case is not a sufficient ground to restrict this right indefinitely.

Additional conditions were imposed on accused such as that it is required to give an undertaking not to contact any exporters related to the case while abroad, directly addressing and mitigating the prosecution's primary concern of evidence tampering.

Similarly, in a PMLA matterin 2025, the Rajasthan High Court allowed a PMLA accused to travel to Singapore and Dubai on furnishing a ₹25 lakh bank guarantee and complying with return conditions. These decisions illustrate that even in offences with serious or transnational implications, courts may grant travel permissions and that is subject to conditions that secure the ends of justice.

The Supreme Court in the judgment of Ketan Parekh vs SEBI granted permission to travel abroad to the appellant for medical treatment of his daughter. Court has also imposed condition that the appellant will also furnish his itinerary in the Court and also to the U.K. High Commission before his departure from India.

Travel Abroad Permissions in Heinous and Narcotics Crimes on Bail

For heinous crimes like terrorism, murder, sexual offenses, large-scale frauds, or those with severe punishments, courts are highly cautious. These are seen as crimes against society, not just individuals, so applications for permission to travel abroad face strict scrutiny.

In NDPS Act, 1985 cases, the Bombay High Court allowed Rhea Chakraborty to travel abroad for work, based on her bail compliance and return history. Conditions included sharing an active phone number with authorities and submitting an itinerary four days before travel.

In heinous crimes like murder or rape, bail itself is rare due to societal risks. Personal liberty gives way to public interest in grave offenses. Thus, permission to travel abroad in such cases is granted only in exceptional situations, like urgent medical needs.

When Permission to Travel Abroad on Bail is Denied

Courts deny permission if there's a high flight risk, severe offense gravity (especially economic or heinous crimes), or history of non-cooperation. Other factors include weak ties to India (e.g., foreign nationals with "no roots in India"), available alternatives like local medical treatment, or tampering risks, as in Delhi High Court cases like Mrs. Pawanjot Kaur Sawhney v. Union of India and DGGI v. Chaman Goel.

CONCLUSION

Hence, the grant of permission to travel abroad is contingent upon the existence of a genuine and essential purpose, strict compliance with the conditions of bail, the stage and status of the proceedings, an assessment of the likelihood of absconding, the readiness of the accused to furnish adequate safeguards, and the nature and gravity of the offence alleged. Such permission does not constitute an absolute right of the accused but lies within the sound discretion of the trial court. The court, while exercising this discretion, is required to harmonies the individual’s right to personal liberty with the imperative of ensuring the effective administration of criminal justice