Past Compliance With Travel Conditions Doesn't Give Accused Indefeasible Right To Repeated Foreign Travel: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has observed that an accused's compliance with conditions imposed during previous foreign travel cannot, by itself, confer an “indefeasible entitlement” to seek permission for foreign travel at successive intervals. 

Justice Sachin Datta made the observation while dismissing a plea filed by one Luv Bhardwaj challenging a condition imposed by a CBI court restricting him from moving a similar application for foreign travel for six months, except in “exceptional and compelling circumstances.”

Upholding the order, the Court acknowledged that Bhardwaj's compliance with conditions attached to his earlier travel permissions was a relevant consideration in his favour. However, it held that such compliance did not eliminate the court's power to impose prospective safeguards.

The Court observed that the right to travel abroad undoubtedly forms part of the personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, however, an accused facing criminal proceedings does not have an unqualified right to travel abroad at any time or for any duration of choice.

“Where criminal proceedings are pending against someone charged with serious charges, the right to travel has necessarily to be balanced against the requirement of securing the presence of the accused and ensuring that the proceedings are not impeded or delayed,” the Court said.

Bhardwaj was earlier permitted to travel abroad on several occasions, including a journey to Istanbul from July 12 to July 20. He was subsequently permitted to travel to Istanbul and Paris between September 10 and September 24.

Justice Datta held that the impugned condition did not impose an absolute embargo on his right to travel abroad and rather, it regulated the manner in which a subsequent request would be considered and expressly preserved the trial court's power to entertain such a request where exceptional and compelling circumstances arose.

“The concern in the present case is not merely whether the petitioner is likely to abscond; it also concerns the orderly progress of ongoing criminal proceedings and the need to regulate repeated requests for absence from the jurisdiction of the Court,” the Court observed.

It further rejected the argument that absence of any previous breach of travel conditions made the impugned restriction impermissible.

“Past compliance is certainly a relevant circumstance while considering a request for travel, but it does not eliminate the Court's power to impose appropriate prospective safeguards,” the Court said.

It also observed that the restriction was limited to a specified period and did not prevent Bhardwaj from approaching the trial court if circumstances arose warranting foreign travel during that period.

The Court also said that the trial court could place a limited regulatory condition on successive or repeated requests for foreign travel, having regard to the pendency of the criminal proceedings, frequency of earlier travel permissions and the requirement of securing Bhardwaj's availability.

While dismissing the plea, the Court clarified that Bhardwaj would remain at liberty to approach the trial court during the stipulated period, with any such application to be considered on its own merits and in accordance with law.