Accused Cannot Travel Abroad During Pending Criminal Trial Without Court Permission: Supreme Court
Case Name: Seesa Santosh v. The State of Telangana and Anr.
Citation: 2026 INSC 628
Date of Judgment/Order: 04 June 2026
Bench: Dipankar Datta, J. and Satish Chandra Sharma, J.
Held: The Supreme Court held that although the right to travel abroad forms part of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution, it is not an absolute right and must be balanced against the complainant’s right to a speedy trial and the larger societal interest in effective administration of criminal justice. The Court held that an accused facing criminal proceedings cannot be permitted to leave India merely on the basis of medical grounds or prior appearances before the Magistrate, particularly where the case has remained pending for years and the accused’s conduct has contributed to delay. The Court clarified that foreign travel by such an accused must be subject to express permission of the competent court.
Summary: The case arose from a criminal prosecution concerning the suspicious unnatural death of the appellant’s father. FIR No. 173 of 2014 was registered for offences under Sections 120-B and 306 read with Section 34 IPC, and the respondent no. 2 was arrayed as an accused. A chargesheet was filed in 2016, but the matter remained at the stage of committal even after nearly ten years. During the proceedings, the respondent no. 2 filed multiple petitions seeking quashing and interim protection, obtained suspension of a Look Out Circular, left India in 2017, and later returned in 2025 when he was arrested at Hyderabad airport. After release, he sought return of his passport. The Magistrate directed release of the passport but clarified that such release did not amount to permission to travel abroad. The Sessions Court reversed the order and directed deposit of the passport, while the Telangana High Court permitted the respondent to travel to the USA for medical treatment. The Supreme Court found that the High Court had been unduly indulgent and had failed to properly balance personal liberty with the need to ensure progress of the criminal trial.
Decision: The Supreme Court disposed of the appeal by setting aside both the Telangana High Court’s order permitting travel to the USA and the Sessions Court’s order directing deposit of the passport, while restoring the balanced approach adopted by the Magistrate. The Court held that the respondent no. 2 need not deposit his passport, but he shall not be entitled to leave India without express permission of the Sessions Court after committal of the case. The respondent may apply for permission to travel abroad if the need arises, and such application shall be decided on its own merits with appropriate conditions if allowed. The Court further directed the civil, police and airport authorities to coordinate and ensure that the respondent does not fly out of the country without express permission of the Sessions Court. All observations were clarified to be non-merits findings, and pending applications were disposed of.