Madras HC Refuses to Let Accused Travel to Libya, Cites Evasion History and Omnibus Application

An accused facing trial under Sections 494 and 498A IPC, who was deported to India after a Blue Corner Notice and Lookout Circular, sought permission to resume work in Libya. The Madras High Court dismissed the revision, finding no change in circumstances and a pattern of evasion that made the risk of trial delay real.

Justice C. Kumarappan, sitting singly at the High Court of Judicature at Madras, on 1 June 2026 dismissed a criminal revision filed by D. Sathishkumar, an engineer who had been working in Libya since 2019 and was seeking permission to return there while on bail in a case registered under Sections 494 and 498A of the IPC. The revision challenged an order dated 19 January 2026 passed by the Judicial Magistrate No. IV, Salem, which had rejected the same prayer. The High Court found no perversity in the Magistrate's order and declined to interfere, holding that the petitioner's past conduct of evading investigation for nearly three years and the absence of any change in circumstances left no ground for revision.

How the Case Reached the High Court

The complaint was first lodged by S. Vasanthi, the petitioner's wife, before the Vazhappadi Police Station in Crime No. 364 of 2022 under Section 498A IPC. Alleging that the investigation was ineffective, she filed a transfer petition before the Madras High Court. The Court transferred the investigation to the CBCID, Salem, by order dated 12 August 2024. After the transfer, the case was re-registered as Crime No. 2 of 2025 on 8 February 2025.

The CBCID completed its investigation and filed a final report on 29 July 2025 before the Judicial Magistrate No. IV, Salem. The final report was taken on file as C.C. No. 1170 of 2025 under Sections 494 and 498A IPC. Section 494 IPC deals with marrying again during the lifetime of a husband or wife.

Because the petitioner had been staying outside India and was not cooperating with the investigation, a Blue Corner Notice and a Lookout Circular were issued against him. He was eventually deported to India and arrested on 25 March 2025 at Bombay Airport, after which he was remanded to judicial custody. He was subsequently enlarged on bail with conditions, one of which — imposed by order dated 23 April 2025 in Crl.MP. No. 1057 of 2025 — required him to appear and sign before the respondent police on the 1st and 16th of every month at 10:00 a.m.

While on bail, the petitioner filed an application before the Magistrate seeking permission to resume his employment in Libya. That application, Crl.MP. No. 3863 of 2025, was dismissed on 19 January 2026 after the Magistrate considered the petitioner's past conduct of evading investigation. That order was not challenged and attained finality. Within a short period, the petitioner filed a second application, Crl.MP. No. 2566 of 2025, seeking the same relief. The Magistrate dismissed it on 19 January 2026 on two grounds: the petitioner had not disclosed the statutory basis for the application's maintainability, and the application was a replication of the earlier one. The petitioner then filed the present revision, CRL RC No. 462 of 2026, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

Arguments Before the High Court

Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. N. Manoharan, argued that there is no legal bar under the Code of Criminal Procedure to permit an accused to continue employment abroad. He submitted that no person can be deprived of the right to go abroad unless a law prescribes the procedure for such deprivation. He relied on Articles 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India, contending that the petitioner's employment in Libya since 2019 was his avocation and that preventing him from returning amounted to a violation of personal liberty. He also pointed to Section 6(2)(f) of the Passport Act, 1967, arguing it raised no bar to granting such permission. The petitioner offered to appear before the Court through virtual mode and undertook to appear personally at the time of pronouncing judgment.

Counsel for the petitioner also relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Mahesh Kumar Agarwal v. Union of India and another, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2887, contending that a passport may be returned to an accused on his undertaking to appear before the Court.

The Government Advocate (Criminal Side), Mr. R. Kishore Kumar, appearing for the State, opposed the revision. He pointed out that although the FIR was registered in 2022, the petitioner could be secured only after three years, following the issuance of a Blue Corner Notice and Lookout Circular. He argued that if the petitioner were allowed to travel abroad, securing his presence for trial would become very difficult. He also contended that filing a second application without challenging the first was impermissible, and that there was no change in circumstances to justify a fresh application.

S. Vasanthi, the de facto complainant and the petitioner's wife, was impleaded as the second respondent by order dated 1 June 2026 in Crl.MP. No. 6310 of 2026. Through her counsel, Mr. T. Sundaravadanam, she submitted that the petitioner had developed an illegal relationship with one Jubaida Khatun while working abroad and had married her, and that there was also dowry harassment. She prayed for dismissal of the revision.

How the Court Reasoned

Justice Kumarappan began by distinguishing the Supreme Court precedent the petitioner relied upon. In Mahesh Kumar Agarwal v. Union of India, the petitioner had sought the return of his passport for renewal. In the present case, the petitioner wanted to travel abroad. The Court accepted the general proposition from that decision — that the right to travel abroad is a valuable and integral part of the right to personal liberty — but held that a balance must be struck between individual rights and the enforcement of the criminal justice system.

The Court then examined the petitioner's application itself. It found the application to be omnibus: it did not separately address the return of the passport, the dispensation of personal appearance before the Court, or permission to appear through virtual mode at all stages. The petitioner had bundled all these prayers together without identifying the statutory basis for each. The Court agreed with the Magistrate's characterisation of the application as a replication of the earlier one.

On the question of past conduct, the Court found it decisive. The complaint was lodged in 2022. Despite requests from the investigating agency, the petitioner did not return to India and did not cooperate with the investigation. He could be secured only after a Blue Corner Notice and Lookout Circular were issued, and even then he had to be deported. The Court held that this conduct clearly demonstrated a real possibility of the petitioner delaying the trial by remaining continuously in Libya if permitted to travel.

The Court also addressed the petitioner's offer to appear through virtual mode. It observed that while the petitioner expressed willingness to appear virtually at all stages except the pronouncing of judgment, this formulation indirectly sought to constrain the Magistrate's discretion. The Court noted that a condition requiring the petitioner to appear and sign before the police twice a month was still in force, and allowing travel to Libya would make compliance with that condition impossible.

On the scope of revision, the Court reiterated the settled position that revisional jurisdiction is narrow. Unless the findings of the lower court are palpably perverse or unsupported by available material, they cannot be disturbed. The Court found no such perversity in the Magistrate's order.

Outcome

The Criminal Revision Case was dismissed. The order of the Judicial Magistrate No. IV, Salem, dated 19 January 2026, rejecting the petitioner's application for permission to travel to Libya, was upheld. The bail conditions, including the requirement to appear and sign before the respondent police on the 1st and 16th of every month, remain in force.