The Supreme Court of India has ruled that while the right to travel abroad is an essential component of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution, it is not absolute and must be balanced against the right to a speedy trial and the broader societal interest in the administration of criminal justice.
A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma delivered this landmark ruling while setting aside a Telangana High Court order that had permitted an accused to travel to the United States of America (USA) on medical grounds. The apex court restored a Magistrate’s order, holding that while the accused is not required to deposit his passport, he cannot leave the country without the express permission of the Sessions Court after the case is committed.
Background of the Case
The legal battle trace back to October 12, 2014, when the appellant, Seesa Santosh, lodged a complaint regarding the suspicious unnatural death of his father. Initially, an unnatural death case was registered under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). The subsequent investigation culminated in the registration of FIR No. 173 of 2014 for offences under Sections 120-B and 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), in which the respondent no. 2 was arrayed as an accused. A chargesheet was filed against him on February 29, 2016.
During the investigation, respondent no. 2 instituted Writ Petition No. 17530 of 2015 before the High Court seeking to quash the FIR and consequential proceedings. In the interim, his application seeking permission to travel abroad was dismissed on August 26, 2015, and the writ petition was subsequently withdrawn on October 19, 2016.
Because the respondent no. 2 failed to appear before the trial court and did not engage a lawyer, a non-bailable warrant of arrest and a Look Out Circular (LoC) were issued against him. Respondent no. 2 then filed Criminal Petition No. 14462 of 2016 seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings. The High Court suspended the operation of the LoC by an order dated October 14, 2016 (clarified on November 18, 2016), after which the respondent no. 2 left the country in 2017. During his absence, another FIR (No. 320 of 2021) was registered against him under Sections 443, 427, 420, and 506 of the IPC.
On August 23, 2023, the respondent no. 2 withdrew Criminal Petition No. 14462 of 2016. Upon his return to India, he was arrested at the Rajiv Gandhi International Airport in Hyderabad on April 19, 2025. Following his release from custody, he applied to the Magistrate for the return of his passport.
On May 7, 2025, the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Principal Judicial Magistrate First Class at Bhongir ordered the release of his passport but clarified that this did not grant permission to leave the country without obtaining permission from the competent court. The State challenged this, and on September 26, 2025, the Principal Sessions Judge, Bhuvangiri, reversed the Magistrate’s decision, directing the respondent no. 2 to deposit his passport and recommending to passport authorities to restrict his movement under the Passports Act, 1967.
Assailing the Sessions Court’s order, respondent no. 2 preferred a revision petition under Section 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). On October 28, 2025, the Telangana High Court allowed the revision petition, restored the Magistrate’s order, and permitted the respondent no. 2 to travel to the USA after committal of the case, subject to certain conditions. This order was subsequently challenged by the appellant before the Supreme Court.
Arguments of the Parties
For the Appellant: Mr. Parameshwar, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, argued that the respondent no. 2 should not be allowed to travel to the USA until the conclusion of the trial. He contended that the respondent no. 2 had consistently misused the legal process by filing successive petitions and applications to delay and obstruct the progress of the trial. He further alleged that the respondent no. 2 had suppressed material facts, including the non-disclosure of the dismissal of his earlier writ petition (Writ Petition No. 17530 of 2015) in subsequent petitions before the High Court. Furthermore, the appellant’s counsel claimed that the medical certificate was forged and that there was nothing on record to indicate a medical ailment necessitating travel to the USA, making the deposit of the passport imperative to ensure his presence during the trial.
For the Respondent: Mr. Niranjan Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent no. 2, countered that requiring the surrender of the passport would result in an unjustified curtailment of the fundamental right to travel abroad under Article 21 of the Constitution. He submitted that the respondent no. 2 is a citizen of the USA, where his family resides, and that he had suffered two brain strokes in the year 2023, requiring ongoing medical treatment there. He argued that the delay in concluding the trial was not solely attributable to the respondent no. 2, as other co-accused had also filed quashing petitions. He added that the appellant himself contributed to the delay by seeking further investigation nearly nine years after the FIR was registered.
The Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Supreme Court observed that although the FIR was registered in 2014 and the chargesheet was filed in 2016, the case remains at the committal stage after nearly ten years. While acknowledging that delay cannot always be blamed solely on the accused, the Court highlighted that the chronology of events demonstrated a proactive role by the respondent no. 2 in seeking judicial intervention at every stage to impede the progress of the trial. The Court found his conduct of withdrawing petitions after securing interim protections raised serious doubts regarding his bona fides.
Referring to the High Court’s exercise of revisional jurisdiction, the Supreme Court noted that the High Court had shown unwarranted indulgence based on the respondent’s medical needs and his previous appearances before the Magistrate. The Supreme Court observed:
“…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.”
Addressing the constitutional argument regarding Article 21, the Supreme Court emphasized that the right to a speedy trial is also an integral facet of Article 21. It held that a balance must be struck between individual liberty and societal interest. In doing so, the Court relied on its previous ruling in Rajesh Ranjan Yadav v. CBI (2007) 1 SCC 70, quoting:
“We are of the opinion that while it is true that Article 21 is of great importance because it enshrines the fundamental right to individual liberty, but at the same time a balance has to be struck between the right to individual liberty and the interest of society. No right can be absolute, and reasonable restrictions can be placed on them. While it is true that one of the considerations in deciding whether to grant bail to an accused or not is whether he has been in jail for a long time, the court has also to take into consideration other facts and circumstances, such as the interest of the society.”
The Decision
The Supreme Court concluded that the Principal Judicial Magistrate’s order dated May 7, 2025, was entirely justified under the circumstances and did not require interdiction. Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned order of the High Court as well as the order of the Sessions Judge.
The Court clarified that the respondent no. 2 is not required to deposit his passport, but he is strictly prohibited from flying out of the country unless express permission is granted. The Court directed that:
- The process of committal to the Court of Sessions must be expedited if it has not already been completed.
- After the committal of the case, the respondent no. 2 is free to approach the Sessions Court for permission to travel abroad, where he must satisfy the court of his need. The Sessions Court may consider such an application on its merits and impose appropriate conditions if it inclines to grant the prayer.
- The civil, police, and airport administrations must coordinate with each other to ensure that the respondent no. 2 does not leave the country without the express permission of the Sessions Court.
The Court concluded by clarifying that these observations are not to be treated as findings on the merits of the case.
Case Details
Case Title: Seesa Santosh v. The State of Telangana and Anr.
Case No.: SLP (CRL) No. 18022 of 2025)
Bench: Justice Dipankar Datta, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
Date: June 4, 2026
