Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DIPANKAR DATTA, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, JJ.
Seesa Santosh – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana And Anr. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. of 2026 [Arising out of SLP (Crl) No. 18022 of 2025]
Decided On : 04-06-2026
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 120-B and 306 read with Section 34 read with Sections 443, 427, 420 and 506 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 457 [Section 503 of BNSS] – Passports Act, 1967 – Section 10 – Constitution of India – Article 21 – Impounding of Passport – Passport released by Court on medical ground to avail treatment in USA – While Article 21 guarantees fundamental right to personal liberty, which includes right to travel abroad, such right cannot be viewed in isolation – Balance must be struck between individual liberty of respondent on one hand and right of appellant to speedy trial together with larger societal interest in ensuring effective administration of criminal justice, on other – Medical facilities available in India are comparable with any facility available in any foreign country – High Court, instead of exercising judicial restraint, was indulgent towards respondent and permitted him to travel to USA even though all medical facilities exist domestically – Order passed by Magistrate was justified and did not require interdiction – Impugned order of High Court, as well as order of Sessions Judge, set aside – While respondent may not deposit his Passport but he shall not be entitled to fly out of country except with permission of Court. (Paras 9, 10, 11 and 13)
Facts of the case:
Challenge is laid by appellant to judgment and order dated 28th October, 2025 passed by High Court for State of Telangana at Hyderabad, allowing a revision petition filed by respondent no. 2, under Section 442 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. High Court, while allowing revision petition, set aside order dated 26th September, 2025 passed by Principal Sessions Judge, in Criminal Revision Petition.
Findings of Court:
Civil, police and airport administration shall coordinate with each other to ensure that respondent no.2 does not fly out of country without express permission of Sessions Court.
Result : Appeal disposed of.
Key Points: - The judgment discusses balancing personal liberty (Article 21) with the state's interest in speedy trial and administration of criminal justice, in the context of passport impounding and travel permissions (!) (!) . - It holds that the Magistrate’s order releasing the passport is justified, but the High Court and Sessions Court orders restricting travel/deposit of passport are set aside, with directions that the respondent may travel only with express permission of the Sessions Court after committal, and subject to conditions (!) (!) (!) . - It emphasizes that the right to travel abroad is not absolute and must be balanced against societal interests and the need for a timely trial (!) (!) . - It notes the respondent’s medical travel need and the High Court’s reliance on medical grounds, but concludes those reasons do not justify unrestricted travel; instead, travel abroad may be allowed only after committal and with court permission, under appropriate conditions (!) (!) . - The Court finds the High Court’s indulgent approach in allowing travel to the USA to be unsustainable, citing delay, conduct of the respondent, and the availability of medical facilities domestically (!) (!) . - It directs coordination among civil, police, and airport authorities to ensure no flight out without express Sessions Court permission (!) . - It clarifies that observations are not findings on merits of the case and that orders should be considered on their merits with potential conditions if travel is permitted (!) (!) .
JUDGMENT
DIPANKAR DATTA, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Challenge is laid by the appellant to the judgment and order dated 28th October, 2025 [impugned order] passed by the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [High Court] , allowing a revision petition [Criminal Revision Case No. 751 of 2025] filed by the respondent no. 2, under Section 442 [erstwhile section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973] of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [BNSS] . The High Court, while allowing the revision petition, set aside the order dated 26th September, 2025 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Bhuvangiri [Sessions Judge] in Criminal Revision Petition No. 4 of 2025. The Sessions Judge, by the aforesaid order, had set aside an order dated 7 th May, 2025 passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Principal Judicial Magistrate First Class, at Bhongir [Magistrate] disposing of the application of the respondent no.2 seeking return of his passport.
3. The facts relevant for a decision on this appeal are these. Appellant lodged a complaint on 12th October, 2014 regarding the suspicious unnatural death of his father. An unnatural death case under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [CrPC] was registered. Investigation was initiated which culminated in 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]. Respondent no.2 was arrayed as an accused in the said FIR. Chargesheet came to be filed against the respondent no. 2 under Sections 120-B and 306 read with Section 34, IPC on 29th February, 2016. Respondent No.2 instituted Writ Petition No.17530 of 2015 seeking quashing of the FIR and consequential proceedings. In the interim, an application seeking permission to travel abroad was also made by the respondent no.2, which came to be dismissed on 26th August, 2015. The writ petition itself was subsequently withdrawn on 19th October, 2016. Since the respondent no. 2 failed to appear before the trial court and did not engage any lawyer, a non-bailable warrant of arrest and a Look Out Circular [LoC] came to be issued against him. Subsequently, the respondent no. 2 instituted Criminal Petition No. 14462 of 2016 before the High Court seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings. Upon an application made by the respondent no.2, the High Court suspended operation of the LoC by an order dated 14 th October, 2016, clarified by order dated 18th November, 2016. Pursuant thereto, the respondent no. 2 left the country in 2017. In the interregnum, another FIR [FIR No. 320 of 2021] under Sections 443, 427, 420 and 506 IPC came to be registered against him. Thereafter, the said petition (Criminal Petition No.14462 of 2016) seeking quashing of criminal proceedings came to be withdrawn by the respondent no. 2 on 23rd August, 2023. On 19th April 2025, upon his return to India, the respondent no. 2 was arrested at the Rajiv Gandhi International Airport, Hyderabad. Upon release from custody, the respondent no.2 filed an application before the Magistrate seeking return of his passport which, as noted above, was disposed of by an order dated 7th May, 2025 but set aside by the Sessions Judge on 26th September, 2025 while deciding the State’s revision petition. Thereafter, the respondent no.2 preferred a revision petition before the High Court, which came to be allowed vide the order impugned herein, permitting him to travel back to the United States of America [USA] subject to certain conditions. It is also pertinent to mention that during pendency of the present proceedings, the respondent no.2 has also filed another Criminal Petition No.1744 of 2025 seeking quashing of the criminal case.
4. Mr. Parameshwar, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant contended that the respondent no. 2 ought not to be permitted to travel to the USA until the conclusion of the trial. Respondent no. 2, according to learned counsel, has consistently misuse
Impounding of Passport – While Article 21 guarantees fundamental right to personal liberty, which includes right to travel abroad, such right cannot be viewed in isolation – Balance must be struck be....
The right to travel abroad is a fundamental right under Article 21, and mere pendency of a criminal case cannot justify the denial of passport issuance.
The court held that the risk of flight must be objectively assessed based on the petitioner's conduct and history of compliance, not solely on allegations of economic offences.
The fundamental right to travel abroad should not be deprived except by a just, fair, and reasonable procedure, as per the principles established by various judgments.
The right to renew a passport and travel abroad is protected under Article 21, requiring judicial discretion to be applied, ensuring it is not curtailed arbitrarily while considering ongoing criminal....
The right to renew a passport is part of personal liberty and cannot be arbitrarily restricted without due process, particularly when the individual is not convicted.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
