Right To Travel Abroad Can't Be Denied Merely Because Visit Is Social Or Celebratory In Nature: AP High Court

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that an accused facing criminal proceedings cannot be denied permission to travel abroad merely because the purpose of the visit is social or celebratory rather than urgent or fundamental. [2026 LiveLaw (AP) 110]

Setting aside the trial court's refusal, the Court held that the right to travel abroad under Article 21 extends to personal and family engagements, including social and celebratory occasions. 

Justice Y. Lakshmana Rao allowed a criminal revision petition filed by the petitioner, who is facing prosecution in a CID case, challenging the trial court's refusal to return his passport and permit him to travel to the USA. 

The Court observed:

"In the instant case also, the petitioner intends to attend the housewarming ceremony of his first cousin in the USA. The request of the petitioner cannot be denied on the ground that the purpose of his visit abroad is purely social and celebratory in nature rather than urgent or fundamental. "

The petitioner, an accused in a CID case, sought return of his passport and permission to travel to the United States to attend his first cousin's housewarming ceremony and a family gathering.

The trial court had earlier rejected the application of the Petitioner solely on the ground that the proposed visit was purely social and celebratory and did not constitute a compelling reason to permit foreign travel.

Before the High Court, the petitioner submitted that the investigation was substantially complete, the charge sheet had already been filed, and he had previously travelled abroad with the Court's permission and returned in compliance with all conditions. The prosecution opposed the plea, contending that the investigation was still pending and that the petitioner was involved in another criminal case.

Holding that the trial court had erred in refusing permission solely because the purpose of travel was social in nature, the High Court observed that any apprehension regarding the petitioner's return could be addressed by imposing appropriate conditions.

It accordingly set aside the impugned order and permitted him to travel abroad subject to conditions ensuring his return and cooperation with the investigation.

Case Title: Devineni Avinash v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case No.: Criminal Revision Case No. 653 of 2026

Counsel for the Petitioner: Vivekananda Virupaksha

Counsel for the Respondent: Public Prosecutor.

Click Here To Read/Download Order

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 110