The right to travel abroad is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution and can only be restricted reasonably and proportionally.

1. Order dated 26.04.2013 passed by the learned Special Judge, Special Court, Alipore in Special Case No.7 of 1998 arising out of R.C. Case No.6E/1996 rejecting the prayer of the petitioner to go abroad has been challenged.

2. The petitioner claims to be a businessman having various business interests, some of which are situated abroad. He has been implicated as an accused person in Special Case No 7 of 1998 arising out of R.C. Case No.6E/1996 in respect of which charges have just been framed and the date for recording evidence has been fixed on January 20, 2014.

3. It appears that the petitioner had absconded and was finally detained in West Germany in 2002. Extradition Proceeding was initiated and he was brought to the country in 2007. He was released on bail on August 22, 2008 subject to various conditions. From time to time conditions have been relaxed, however, the petitioner is subjected to the condition that he shall not travel abroad without permission of the Court. The petitioner made a prayer before the trial Court seeking permission to travel abroad on the ground that such travel is necessary for catering to his overseas business interests.

4. The trial Court in view of the fact that the petitioner had absconded for a protracted period of time, rejected such payer. Hence this application.

5. Mr. Moitra, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had been in detention since 2002 and upon his release on bail has been regularly attending the trial proceeding. He further submitted that there was no chance of his client absconding and that he had already suffered detention for more than eight years in connection with this case since 2002. He further undertook that his mother, Sati Ghosh, permanent resident of this city, shall stand as a guarantee on his behalf. According to him, the fundamental right of the petitioner to travel abroad to earn his livelihood ought not to be whittled down due to the pendency of the criminal proceeding which may take years to conclude.

6. Mr. De, learned senior counsel appearing for the C.B.I. opposed such prayer and submitted that in view of the gravity of the offence which related to defrauding a Nationalized Bank of several crores of rupees and the past conduct of the petitioner he ought not to be permitted to go abroad. A red corner notice had been issued against the petitioner in order to procure his arrest and as a result thereof he was ultimately detained in West Germany and brought to justice after a protracted extradition proceeding.

7. Having considered the materials on record, I find that the petitioner had been extradited to the country after being detained in West Germany. However, since his release on bail he has been regularly attending the trial proceeding. I find that although the petitioner was extradited to India in 2008 charges in the instant case was framed after about five years as late as on 25.11.2013 and, that too, at the insistence of this Court.

8. I am informed that there are about sixty prosecution witnesses cited in the charge-sheet and a large number of documents are also to be exhibited during trial. Hence, there is hardly any chance of the trial in the instant case concluding in the near future.

9. While one cannot ignore the necessity of subjecting the petitioner to stringent conditions, to ensure his presence during trial, his fundamental right of free movement including his right to go abroad for earning his livelihood cannot also be lightly brushed aside.

10. It brooks no controversy that the right to go abroad is a part of the fundamental right to life and personal liberty as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India as enunciated in the case of Smt. Maneka Gandhi – Vs. – Union of India, A.I.R. 1978 S.C. 597.

11. Hence, when a citizen is accused of an offence, his right to free movement may be subjected to restrictions. However, such restrictions must be just reasonable, fair and proportionate to the