Punjab & Haryana High Court Permits Accused Businessman to Travel Abroad; Reaffirms Right to Travel Abroad as Fundamental Liberty under Article 21

Case Name: Jonty Chhag @ Jonty Vinay Chhag v. State of Haryana
Date of Judgment: October 28, 2025
Citation: CRM-M-57206-2025
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sumeet Goel

Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court allowed the petition of Jonty Chhag seeking permission to travel abroad for business purposes despite being an accused in an FIR under Sections 420, 406, 409, 467, 468, 471, 474, 120-B, 380, and 34 IPC. Justice Sumeet Goel observed that the petitioner had earlier been permitted to travel abroad twice (to Sharjah in November 2023 and Doha in June 2024) and had complied with all conditions, returning to India on time. Finding no material suggesting that the petitioner was likely to abscond or interfere with the trial, the Court held that liberty to travel abroad is an integral part of the right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution and can only be curtailed through just, fair, and reasonable procedure established by law.

Summary: The petitioner, facing trial in FIR No. 158 dated March 13, 2018 (alleging cheating and criminal breach of trust), had sought permission to travel abroad to Dubai, Doha, and Turkey between October and December 2025 for business meetings. His earlier plea before the SDJM, Gharaunda was rejected on apprehensions that he might flee from justice. Before the High Court, he submitted that he had strictly complied with prior travel permissions and produced fresh invitations and itinerary for the proposed trips. The State and the complainant opposed the plea, alleging risk of absconding and the use of forged documents.

Justice Sumeet Goel examined the constitutional protection under Article 21, citing Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D. Ramarathnam (AIR 1967 SC 1836), Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978 AIR SC 597), and Satish Chandra Verma v. Union of India (2019) 2 SCT 741, reaffirming that the right to travel abroad is a recognized facet of personal liberty. The Court stressed that restrictions on such rights must be proportionate and supported by tangible evidence of flight risk. Since no such material existed against the petitioner, and considering his past compliance, the High Court found no justification to deny permission.

Decision: The High Court allowed the petition and permitted the petitioner to travel abroad in accordance with his stated itinerary, subject to terms ensuring his return and continued participation in the trial. The judgment emphasized a justice-oriented approach over procedural rigidity, noting that procedural laws are “handmaidens of justice and not its mistress.” The Court reiterated that absent concrete evidence of mala fide intent or likelihood of absconding, the right to travel abroad cannot be denied merely due to pendency of criminal proceedings.