'Facet Of Article 21': MP High Court Allows Russian National Booked In Cheating FIR To Travel Abroad For Disabled Son's Treatment

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has allowed a Russian citizen, facing charges of cheating, criminal breach of trust and criminal conspiracy in India, to travel abroad for his disabled son's treatment. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 257]While setting aside the trial court's order rejecting his plea solely because his son has suffered from the illness since childhood, the bench of Justice Pavan Kumar Dwivedi held;"Rejection merely for the reason that the son of the petitioner is suffering from the illness since childhood cannot be sustained". The bench observed that the case involved two facets of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. The first being the petitioner's right to travel abroad and the second, his right to care for his ailing son. The court stated:"The petitioner demonstrated that he wish to visit abroad for the treatment of his son, thus there are two aspects which are involved in the present matter, first the right to travel abroad, and the second to tend to the ailing son of the petitioner, both these aspects can be said to be facets of right to live with freedom as guaranteed by our Constitution in Article 21". The court further noted that the Trial Court had previously granted the petitioner permission to travel abroad for the "very same illness". The petitioner, a Russian citizen, filed a petition challenging the order of the Trial Court, which rejected his application seeking permission to travel abroad. The petitioner is accused of cheating (Section 318), criminal breach of trust (Section 316), and criminal conspiracy (Section 61) under BNS. The petitioner filed a bail application, which the High Court rejected. Aggrieved, he approached the Supreme Court, which granted interim bail on certain conditions, including surrendering his passport and cooperating with the investigation, and permitted the trial court to impose such bail conditions as it deemed fit. The order also granted him liberty to seek modification of the bail conditions by the Trial Court if he needs to travel abroad. Thereafter, on February 3, 2026, the petitioner surrendered his passport. However, it is claimed that his son suffers from Mental Retardation and Minimal Cerebral dysfunction and is permanently disabled. The petitioner claimed that his son and wife are living in Russia, and there is no one to care for them.Since his child requires treatment, he filed an application seeking permission to travel, which was granted, and he after returning surrender his passport on May 11, 2026. Subsequently, he filed another application due to aggravation of the child's condition, but it was rejected by the trial court. The counsel for the petitioner argued that the trial court did not consider the petitioner's prayers and rejected the application on the ground that the child has suffered from this disease since childhood. Further, relying on the right to travel under Article 21, the counsel argued that the trial court could not reject the application without 'discarding the reasons cited by the petitioner'.The counsel for the State argued that if the petitioner misuses the permission and abandons it, then it would be very difficult to bring him back for trial. The court noted that the Supreme Court, while granting bail, clearly stated that the Trial Court can permit the petitioner to travel abroad, in its discretion. Examining the treatment documents, the court noted the duration and outline of his son's treatment from July 25, 2026, to August 10, 2026. Further, the trial court had not held the documents to be false or the illness to be falsely claimed. The bench noted that the petitioner had availed of the permission and did not misuse it. The court also noted that the petitioner's father is living in India, and he had also started a business in India. Therefore, the court held that there was no chance of the petitioner fleeing. Thus, the bench set aside the Trial Court's order of May 22, and granted the petitioner permission to travel abroad. Case Title: Gaurav Ahlawat v State of Madhya Pradesh, MCRC-24830-2026Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 257For Petitioner: Senior Advocate RS Chhabra with Advocate Aman Arora For State: Government Advocate Hemant SharmaClick here to read/download the Order

'Facet Of Article 21': MP High Court Allows Russian National Booked In Cheating FIR To Travel Abroad For Disabled Son's Treatment

Jayanti Pahwa

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Jayanti Pahwa

'Facet Of Article 21': MP High Court Allows Russian National Booked In Cheating FIR To Travel Abroad For Disabled Son's Treatment

Jayanti Pahwa

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Jayanti Pahwa

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers