Back
Denies Foreign Travel To Pregnant Afghan National With Twin Pregnancy
Justice Sanjeev Narula upholds 's refusal, but warns investigation must not obstruct medical care
The on , declined a plea by an Afghan national, who is carrying twins conceived through IVF, to travel to the United Kingdom for delivery and postnatal care. Justice Sanjeev Narula dismissed the petition challenging a order that had refused to release her UK Convention Travel Document and permit travel, citing the ongoing into allegations of passport fraud. However, the Court issued a significant caveat: the refusal must not impede her access to necessary medical treatment.
The Allegations and the Petitioner's Predicament
Simran Kaur, an Afghan national with in the United Kingdom, was arrested on , in connection with FIR No.105/2026 registered at . The FIR alleges that she procured an Indian passport in the identity of “Jyoti Chawla” using and used that passport to depart from India on . She was granted bail just three days later, on , primarily due to her pregnancy, diabetes, and need for ongoing medical care. One of the bail conditions explicitly restrained her from leaving India without prior court permission.
The petitioner, now in an advanced stage of a twin pregnancy achieved through IVF, suffers from gestational diabetes and hypothyroidism. She was hospitalized in with complications, including leaking per vaginum and reduced amniotic fluid. Her counsel argued that the proposed travel was not recreational but essential for her confinement, delivery, and postnatal care in the UK, where she ordinarily resides and has until .
Arguments: vs.
For the Petitioner: and contended that the ’s refusal was based on a bare apprehension of , without giving due weight to her medical condition and her conduct after release. They argued she had joined the investigation when required, attended proceedings, and even approached the for an , which is inconsistent with an intention to evade authorities. They relied on and to assert that the is an aspect of under , and that a should not result in loss of lawful residence status abroad without sufficient justification.
On the retention of the UK Travel Document, they cited and , arguing that the police cannot indefinitely retain a genuine document not alleged to be forged. They also invoked and to emphasize constitutional protection for health and . Finally, they offered stringent conditions, including an FDR, additional local surety, disclosure of itinerary, and periodic reporting to the .
For the State: , APP, opposed the petition, arguing that investigation is still underway, the allegedly forged Indian passport has not been recovered, and further information about documents used for obtaining Indian identity is awaited. He submitted that given the petitioner's settled residence and asylum in the UK, there is no effective assurance of her return.
Legal Analysis: Balancing Liberty with Criminal Justice
Justice Narula carefully analyzed the legal framework. While recognizing that extends to foreigners, the Court held that the is not absolute when criminal proceedings are pending. A restriction intended to secure the accused’s availability is permissible if it bears a to that object.
The Court distinguished the present case from Parvez Noordin Lokhandwalla , noting that the accused in that case had a long history of traveling between India and the US and returning, and substantial ties with India. Here, the petitioner has no such demonstrated history. More recently, in , the drew a distinction between possession of a passport and permission to leave India, and held that even a plea founded on medical treatment abroad may not be sufficient.
The Court also examined the case diary and material collected during investigation, as permitted under . It noted that the material, including photographs from airport records, supports the prosecution’s assertion that its apprehension is not merely hypothetical. The Court was careful to emphasize that the petitioner continues to be presumed innocent, but the presumption does not require ignoring the nature of the accusation when deciding whether to relax a .
Key Observations
“The , however, does not require the Court to ignore the nature of the accusation and the material collected thus far when deciding whether an existing should be relaxed.”
“ may attach a financial consequence to ; it cannot secure the Petitioner’s physical availability once she is outside Indian jurisdiction.”
“Once she resumes residence there, securing her presence would no longer remain entirely within the immediate control of the criminal court. In these circumstances, the apprehension of cannot be characterised as remote or speculative.”
On the medical aspect, the Court acknowledged the seriousness of the petitioner's condition but noted that no medical opinion stated that the required treatment is unavailable in India or that delivery in the UK is medically necessary. It also observed that no certificate declared her fit to undertake a long international flight.
The Verdict and Directions
The petition was dismissed. The Court refused to release the UK Travel Document at this stage, but clarified that upon completion of investigation, the petitioner may seek its return before the competent court.
However, in a significant , the Court ordered:
“The SHO and the Investigating Officer shall therefore ensure that the investigation does not obstruct or delay her access to appropriate antenatal, diabetic, or other medical treatment. Should she seek treatment at a Government tertiary-care hospital in Delhi, the State shall facilitate it promptly. Her physical attendance before the Investigating Officer shall be required with due regard to medical advice and, unless an urgent investigative need dictates otherwise, only upon reasonable prior notice.”
The Court also directed the investigating agency to expedite the pending investigation. The observations in the order were confined to the travel request and shall have no bearing on the trial.
