Supreme Court Bars Accused From Travelling Abroad Without Sessions Court Leave, Restores Magistrate's Passport Order
A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma held that the right to travel abroad under Article 21 must yield to the victim's right to a speedy trial in a decade-old abetment of suicide case.
The Supreme Court on 4 June 2026 set aside a Telangana High Court order that had permitted the accused in a 2014 abetment of suicide case to travel to the United States of America. The Court restored the order of the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhongir, dated 7 May 2025, which had released the accused's passport but expressly withheld permission to leave the country. The bench held that the High Court was “indulgent towards the respondent” and had failed to exercise judicial restraint, given the accused's decade-long pattern of securing interim reliefs and then withdrawing petitions before final adjudication. The accused may now approach the Sessions Court for travel permission only after committal of the case, and civil, police, and airport authorities have been directed to prevent any departure without that express leave.
How the Dispute Reached the Supreme Court
The appellant, Seesa Santhosh, lodged a complaint on 12 October 2014 regarding the suspicious unnatural death of her father. An unnatural death case under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was registered, which culminated in FIR No. 173 of 2014 for offences under Sections 120-B and 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Respondent No. 2 was named as an accused. A chargesheet was filed against him on 29 February 2016.
From 2015 onwards, the respondent initiated a series of proceedings. He filed Writ Petition No. 17530 of 2015 seeking quashing of the FIR and, in the interim, applied for permission to travel abroad. That application was dismissed on 26 August 2015. The writ petition was withdrawn on 19 October 2016. Having failed to appear before the trial court and having not engaged a lawyer, a non-bailable warrant and a Look Out Circular were issued against him.
The respondent then filed Criminal Petition No. 14462 of 2016 before the High Court seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings. On his application, the High Court suspended the Look Out Circular by an order dated 14 October 2016, clarified on 18 November 2016. The respondent left India in 2017. A second FIR under Sections 443, 427, 420 and 506 IPC was registered against him in the interregnum. He withdrew Criminal Petition No. 14462 of 2016 on 23 August 2023 — without a final adjudication — after having enjoyed the benefit of the suspended Look Out Circular for years.
On 19 April 2025, the respondent returned to India and was arrested at Rajiv Gandhi International Airport, Hyderabad. After release, he applied before the Magistrate for return of his passport. The Magistrate, by order dated 7 May 2025, directed release of the passport but clarified that this did not amount to permission to leave the country and that any foreign travel would require separate permission from a competent court.
The State filed a revision petition before the Principal Sessions Judge, Bhuvangiri. The Sessions Judge, by order dated 26 September 2025, reversed the Magistrate and directed the respondent to deposit his passport, citing the prolonged pendency of the matter. The Sessions Judge also recommended to passport authorities that the respondent's movement be restricted under the Passports Act, 1967.
The respondent then filed Criminal Revision Case No. 751 of 2025 before the Telangana High Court under Section 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The High Court allowed the revision, set aside the Sessions Judge's order, restored the Magistrate's order, and additionally permitted the respondent to travel to the USA after committal of the case, subject to conditions. The High Court's reasons were that the respondent had appeared before the Magistrate on twelve previous occasions and required medical treatment in the USA.
The appellant challenged the High Court's order before the Supreme Court in SLP (Crl.) No. 18022 of 2025. Leave was granted and the matter was heard as a criminal appeal.
The Competing Arguments
Senior counsel for the appellant argued that the respondent had consistently misused the judicial process by filing successive petitions to delay the trial. He contended that the respondent had suppressed the dismissal of Writ Petition No. 17530 of 2015 from subsequent proceedings and applications before the High Court. He further alleged that the medical certificate relied upon by the respondent was forged and that there was nothing on record to show any ailment necessitating travel to the USA. Retaining the passport, he submitted, was essential to secure the respondent's presence and ensure the unhindered continuation of criminal proceedings.
Senior counsel for the respondent countered that requiring surrender of the passport would unjustifiably curtail the fundamental right to travel abroad guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. He submitted that the respondent had suffered two brain strokes in 2023 and had been undergoing medical treatment in the USA, where he is a citizen and where his family resides. He argued that the delay in trial could not be attributed solely to the respondent, as other accused persons had also filed quashing petitions, and that the appellant himself had sought further investigation nearly nine years after the FIR was registered.
The Court's Reasoning on Article 21 and the Conduct of the Accused
The Court acknowledged that the right to travel abroad is an integral facet of personal liberty under Article 21. It did not dispute that the respondent had appeared before the Magistrate on twelve occasions. However, it held that these factors could not be viewed in isolation from the broader trajectory of the proceedings.
The Court found that since the registration of the FIR in 2014, the respondent had initiated multiple proceedings before the High Court, securing interim protections at each stage, and had then withdrawn those petitions before final adjudication. The Court said this pattern “raises serious doubts regarding his bona fides.” In particular, it found that the allegation of the respondent misusing the 2016 suspension of the Look Out Circular to leave the country — without seeking leave of the court — could not be brushed aside.
On the Article 21 argument, the Court held that the right to a speedy trial is equally an integral facet of Article 21. It said a balance must be struck between the individual liberty of the respondent on one hand, and the appellant's right to a speedy trial together with the larger societal interest in effective administration of criminal justice on the other. The Court drew on its earlier decision in Rajesh Ranjan Yadav v. CBI, (2007) 1 SCC 70, where it had observed that while Article 21 enshrines the fundamental right to individual liberty, a balance must be struck with the interest of society, and no right can be absolute.
On the medical treatment argument, the Court was direct. It held that medical facilities available in India “are comparable with any facility available in any foreign country” and that the High Court had been indulgent rather than judicially restrained in accepting the medical ground as sufficient reason to permit foreign travel. The chargesheet had been filed in 2016 and the matter still remained at the stage of committal — nearly ten years later, the trial had not even commenced.
Directions Issued
The Court set aside both the High Court's order dated 28 October 2025 and the Sessions Judge's order dated 26 September 2025. It restored the Magistrate's order dated 7 May 2025.
The Court clarified that the respondent need not deposit his passport. However, he is not entitled to fly out of the country without the express permission of the Sessions Court. After committal of the case, the respondent may approach the Sessions Court for permission to travel abroad if the need arises. Any such application is to be considered on its own merits and in accordance with law, and the Sessions Court may impose appropriate conditions if it is inclined to grant the prayer.
The Court directed civil, police, and airport administration to coordinate with each other to ensure that the respondent does not fly out of the country without the Sessions Court's express permission.
The Court also encouraged expediting the process of committal, noting that parties had not informed it whether the case had already been committed to the court of sessions.
The Court clarified that none of the observations in the order would be treated as findings on the merits of the case.
Order
The criminal appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 18022 of 2025 was disposed of on the above terms. All pending applications were also disposed of.