'Medical Facilities In India Comparable To Any Foreign Country', Supreme Court Restrains Accused From Travelling To USA For Treatment

The Supreme Court has recently refused permission for a foreign travel to an accused who sought medical treatment for an ailment in the USA, noting that the ailment could be cured by the medical facilities available in India.

A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma set aside the Telangana High Court's decision, which had permitted the accused-Respondent No.2 to travel to the USA for treatment of his ailment.

Noting that the accused was facing trial for abetment to suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, and that the medical ailments he suffered from could be adequately treated within India, the Court declined permission for foreign travel. The Court remained unconvinced by the accused's reliance on his track record of cooperation with the trial court and police during the investigation, and further disagreed with the High Court's reasoning that his 12 appearances before the magistrate justified permitting him to travel abroad.

“The “exigencies of medical treatment to be undergone” by the respondent no.2 and that “he has appeared before the Magistrate Court on the last 12 occasions” coupled with his undertaking to return to India within 6 (six) months were considered good enough reasons by the High Court to interfere in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Having regard to the trajectory of the proceedings right from the date the FIR was registered, the conduct of the respondent no.2, the nature of his ailment, and the medical facilities available in India (which, we believe, are comparable with any facility available in any foreign country), we have no doubt in our mind that the High Court instead of exercising judicial restraint was indulgent towards the respondent no.2 and permitted him to travel to the USA even though all medical facilities exist domestically.”, the court observed.

Background

Initially, the Magistrate returned the deposit passport to the accused; however, the Magistrate directed that he shall not leave India without obtaining permission from the competent court.

Aggrieved thereby, the State preferred a revision petition before the Sessions Court.

The Sessions Court reversed the order of the Magistrate and directed the respondent no. 2 to deposit his passport, having regard to the prolonged pendency of the matter. The Sessions Court further recommended to the passport authorities that the movement of the respondent no. 2 be restricted in accordance with the provisions of the Passports Act, 1967.

Assailing the aforesaid order, the respondent no. 2 preferred a revision petition before the High Court, where, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, it set aside the order of the Sessions Court and restored the order passed by the trial court.

In addition thereto, the High Court also permitted the respondent no. 2 to travel to the USA after committal of the case, subject to certain conditions. The reason which weighed with the High Court was that the respondent no.2 had appeared before the Magistrate on 12 (twelve) previous occasions and that he required medical treatment in the USA.

Aggrieved by the High Court's decision, the complainant moved to the Supreme Court.

Decision

Setting aside the impugned order, the judgment authored by Justice Datta rejected the accused's contention that imposing a condition requiring either the deposit of his passport or prior court permission for foreign travel would amount to a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution.

“While Article 21 undoubtedly guarantees the fundamental right to personal liberty, which includes the right to travel abroad, such right cannot be viewed in isolation. A balance must be struck between the individual liberty of the respondent no. 2 on the one hand and the right of the appellant to a speedy trial together with the larger societal interest in ensuring the effective administration of criminal justice, on the other.”, the court observed, citing Rajesh Ranjan Yadav v. CBI, (2007) 1 SCC 70.

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, whereby the magistrate's order was restored to its effect.

Cause Title: SEESA SANTOSH VERSUS THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND ANR.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 603

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) :Mr. K. Parameshwar, Sr. Adv. Mr. M. Sharath Chandra Reddy, Adv. Mr. Yashaswi Sk Chocksey, Adv. Mr. Krishna Kumar Singh, AOR

For Respondent(s) :Ms. Devina Sehgal, AOR Mr. Srikanth Varma Mudunuru, Adv. Mr. Yatharth Kansal, Adv. Mr. S. Niranjan Reddy, Sr. Adv. Mr. Krishna Dev Jagarlamudi, AOR Mr. Arpit Kumar Mishra, Adv. Mr. Vishnu Kanth Mundada, Adv. Mr. Shadab Azhar, Adv.