Andhra Pradesh HC Allows Accused No.31 to Travel to USA for Cousin's Housewarming, Rejects “Social and Celebratory” Bar

The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that an accused's right to travel abroad for a family function cannot be denied solely because the purpose is social or celebratory in nature, setting aside a trial court order that had refused to return the petitioner's passport.

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati, on 2 July 2026, set aside an order of the VI Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Special Court for Trial of CID Cases, Guntur, which had refused to return the passport of Devineni Avinash, Accused No.31 in Crime No.650 of 2021 of Mangalagiri Rural Police Station, and had denied him permission to travel to the United States. Dr. Justice Y. Lakshmana Rao, sitting singly, allowed Criminal Revision Case No.653 of 2026 filed under Sections 438 and 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The court found that the trial court's characterisation of the proposed trip as “purely social and celebratory in nature rather than urgent or fundamental” had no basis in law and ran contrary to the right to travel abroad guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The Application Before the Trial Court and Its Rejection

Devineni Avinash, resident of Ashok Gardens, Gunadala, Vijayawada, is Accused No.31 in a CID-investigated case arising from Crime No.650 of 2021. He filed an application before the Guntur Special Court under Sections 451 and 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967, seeking return of his passport bearing No.B9882014 and permission to travel to the USA from 30.06.2026 to 15.07.2026.

The purpose of travel was to attend the housewarming ceremony of his first cousin scheduled on 06.07.2026 at Herndon, Virginia, and a family get-together and lunch on 07.07.2026. The trial court, by its order dated 16.06.2026 in Crl.M.P.No.274 of 2026, dismissed the application. It held that the reason assigned was purely social and celebratory, not urgent or fundamental, and therefore insufficient cause had been shown for granting permission to travel abroad.

Avinash then filed the present criminal revision before the High Court. Notably, he had already purchased air tickets to travel abroad without first obtaining prior permission from the trial court — a fact recorded by the High Court from the case record.

The Supreme Court Direction on This Petitioner's Passport

The matter carried an added procedural dimension. The Supreme Court of India, in proceedings arising out of Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) Nos.12659–12662 of 2024, by order dated 25.02.2025, had directed Avinash to surrender his passport before the Investigating Officer and not to leave the country without prior permission of the Investigating Officer or the court, in case a charge sheet was filed. By the time the present revision was heard, the charge sheet had been filed, shifting the permission-granting authority back to the trial court or, on revision, to the High Court.

Arguments: Article 21 and Flight Risk

Sri C. Raghu, learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioner's counsel Vivekananda Virupaksha, challenged the trial court's reasoning on two grounds. First, he submitted that the distinction between “social” and “urgent or fundamental” travel is unknown to law and violates Article 21. Second, he pointed to the fact that the investigation had been completed and the charge sheet filed, so the petitioner's presence was not required merely because the FSL report was awaited. He also relied on the petitioner's earlier compliance — the trial court had previously granted him permission to travel to Burgos, Spain, from 03.07.2025 to 12.07.2025, to assist his minor daughter in a competition, and the petitioner had duly returned and complied with all conditions, indicating he was not a flight risk. The petitioner's fixed place of abode and willingness to accept conditions were also placed before the court.

The State, through the Public Prosecutor Sri M. Lakshmi Narayana, supported the trial court's order. The Public Prosecutor went further, submitting that the investigation was still pending and that allowing foreign travel would hamper it. He also disclosed that the petitioner was involved in a separate case — Crime No.412 of 2026 under the provisions of the SC/ST Act — and that the petitioner had filed a quashing petition, Crl.P.No.5256 of 2026, challenging the registration of that crime. The State's contention was that travel abroad was being sought as a device to escape the threat of arrest in Crime No.412 of 2026.

How the Court Reasoned

Dr. Justice Y. Lakshmana Rao first addressed maintainability. The impugned order was characterised as intermediate in nature. The court held that the revision was therefore well maintainable and not barred by Section 397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

On the merits, the court drew on the Supreme Court's decision in Satish Chandra Verma, IPS v. Union of India, Civil Appeal No.3802 of 2019, decided on 09.04.2019. In that case, the Supreme Court had referred to its earlier constitution bench ruling in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248, and held that the right to travel abroad is an important basic human right that nourishes the independent and self-determining creative character of the individual, extending not only freedom of action but also the scope of experience. The right, the Supreme Court had said, also extends to private life, marriage, family, and friendship, and a refusal of freedom to travel abroad can clearly affect these. On that basis, the Supreme Court in Satish Chandra Verma had directed the authorities to permit the appellant to travel abroad, subject to an undertaking to return by a specified date.

Applying that ratio, Dr. Justice Y. Lakshmana Rao held that the right to travel abroad is a basic human right of a citizen of India and cannot be denied by a trial court or an Investigating Officer on the sole ground that the purpose is social or celebratory. The trial court's reasoning, which had treated "social and celebratory" travel as categorically insufficient, was found to have no legal foundation. The court observed that if conditions directing the petitioner to return to India and attend any inquiry process were imposed, the ends of justice would be adequately served.

The court did not accept the State's contention that the application was a device to escape arrest in Crime No.412 of 2026. The petitioner's prior compliance with conditions for his Spain trip, his fixed residence, and his willingness to submit to fresh conditions weighed in his favour.

Order

The Criminal Revision Case was allowed. The impugned order dated 16.06.2026 passed by the VI Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Special Court for Trial of CID Cases, Guntur, in Crl.M.P.No.274 of 2026 in Crime No.650 of 2021, was set aside.

The trial court and the Investigating Officer were directed to return passport No.B9882014 to Avinash and to permit him to travel to the USA from 03.07.2026 to 12.07.2026. The petitioner was directed to return to India and report before the Investigating Officer or the trial court on 13.07.2026 without fail. The petitioner was also directed to submit his itinerary to the Station House Officer concerned and to the trial court. No order was made as to costs. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, were closed.