1. Petition challenging order rejecting permission to travel abroad for livelihood during pending POCSO trial. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Raj) 743
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Farjand Ali, J.
Moti Ram S/o Narayan Ram - Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1563 of 2025
Decided On : 09-01-2026
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Prithvi Raj Singh Balot
For the Respondent: Mr. N.S. Chandawat, Dy GA
For the Petitioner: Mr. Prithvi Raj Singh Balot
For the Respondent: Mr. N.S. Chandawat, Dy GA
The right to travel abroad for livelihood is a fundamental right under Article 21. Pending criminal trials are not absolute bars to travel if the accused demonstrates bona fides and accepts reasonable conditions, such as sureties, to ensure the trial's progress.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 21 - Right to travel abroad as part of personal liberty and right to livelihood - Freedom to travel is a basic human right that can only be restricted by a procedure established by law - Right to travel is intrinsically linked to the right to earn a livelihood. (Paras 7, 8, 9)
(B) Passports Act, 1967 - Section 6 - Pending criminal proceedings - Pendency of a criminal case is not an absolute impediment for the issuance of a passport or permission to travel, particularly when the accused has not been convicted and is presumed innocent. (Paras 6, 8)
(C) Criminal Procedure - Permission to travel abroad during trial - Court must balance the right to livelihood of the accused with the necessity of ensuring their presence during trial - Permission can be granted subject to reasonable conditions, such as furnishing adequate sureties and undertakings to cooperate with the trial process. (Paras 9, 10, 11)
Facts of the case:
An accused facing trial for offenses under the IPC and POCSO Act sought permission from the trial court to travel abroad to rejoin previous employment and earn a livelihood. The trial court rejected the application. The petitioner challenged this order, contending that he had voluntarily returned to the country and surrendered upon learning of the case, demonstrating bona fides and respect for the process of law.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the impugned order failed to consider settled principles regarding the right of an accused to travel. Given the petitioner's conduct of voluntary return and surrender, and the absence of evidence suggesting he was a flight risk, the right to livelihood under Article 21 could not be curtailed simply due to the pendency of a trial.
Issues: Whether the right to travel abroad for livelihood under Article 21 can be denied to an accused during a pending trial when bona fides are established and adequate safeguards can be imposed.
Ratio Decidendi: Right to travel, especially for employment, is a fundamental right under Article 21. In the absence of a conviction or a substantiated risk of absconding, such a right should not be denied. The court can secure the presence of the accused through personal bonds, surety bonds, and strict undertakings to ensure the smooth progress of the trial. (Paras 9, 10)
Result: Revision petition allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- constitutional law
- practice and procedure
-
administrative law
-
passports
- refusal and issuance (Para 6)
-
passports
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner argued right to livelihood and voluntary return show bona fides; State opposed the revision petition. (Para 3 , 4 )
3. Trial court failed to appreciate right to travel abroad for livelihood as facet of Article 21. (Para 9 )
4. Right to travel abroad for livelihood is protected under Article 21; pendency of trial alone cannot justify mechanical refusal. (Para 9 )
5. Revision petition allowed; petitioner permitted to go abroad for two years on furnishing bonds and undertaking. (Para 10 , 11 , 13 )
6. Can an accused facing trial be permitted to travel abroad for livelihood?
Yes, if adequate safeguards are imposed. The right to livelihood under Article 21 cannot be mechanically curtailed merely due to pendency of a criminal case. (Para 9 )
7. What conditions may be imposed when permitting an accused to travel abroad?
The accused must furnish personal and surety bonds, undertake to appear through counsel, not dispute identity, and return when directed by the court. (Para 10 , 11 )
8. Is the pendency of criminal proceedings an absolute bar to issuance of a passport?
No. Under Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, it is a ground for refusal, but courts may permit travel subject to conditions, especially when livelihood is involved. (Para 6 )
ORDER :
FARJAND ALI, J.
1. The instant criminal revision petition under Section 438 and 442 of the BNSS has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved of the order dated 07.11.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge, POCSO Cases, No.1, Jodhpur Metropolitan in Sessions Case No.20/2025, whereby the application moved by the petitioner seeking permission to go abroad for earning livelihood.
2. The petitioner is facing trial in connection with FIR No.167/2024 registered at the Police Station Rajiv Gandhi Nagar, Jodhpur City for the offences under Section 3 54D, 363, 376(2)(N), 376(3) of the IPC and Section 3 /4(ii), 5(L)/6 of the POCSO Act. After investigation, the challan has been filed against the petitioner and the trial is going on. The petitioner filed an application before the trial court seeking permission to go abroad, namely, to Japan, to earn his livelihood. The Learned trial court has rejected the said application, being aggrieved of which the petitioner has preferred the instant revision petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a skilled worker by profession and has been gainfully employed in Japan for the last four to five years and was, in fact, working there even at the time of lodging of the present FIR. Immediately upon receiving information about the registration of the case, the petitioner voluntarily returned to India and surrendered before the learned trial court without being arrested, which conduct itself demonstrates his bona fides and respect for the process of law. It is further contended that the petitioner has not sought or obtained any fresh recruitment or employment during the pendency of the trial and is merely seeking permission to rejoin his existing employment, which he has been holding for a considerable period. Learned counsel submits that denial of permission to travel abroad would result in loss of livelihood to the petitioner and would seriously prejudice his right to livelihood guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, apart from causing irreparable hardship to his dependent family members. It is urged that the petitioner has never misused the liberty granted to him and there is no apprehension of his absconding or evading the trial. The petitioner undertakes that on each and every date of hearing, his learned counsel shall remain present before the trial court and he shall not raise any objection if the prosecution witnesses are examined and cross-examined in his absence. He further undertakes not to dispute his identity before the trial court on the ground of his absence and assures that he shall return to India whenever directed by the court and immediately upon being informed by his counsel. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner is willing to furnish adequate sureties, bonds and any other conditions that may be imposed by this Court or the trial court to secure his presence and to ensure the smooth progress of the trial. It is, therefore, contended that the impugned order has been passed in a mechanical manner without appreciating the aforesaid facts and circumstances, and the same deserves to be set aside in the interest of justice.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the revision petition and supported the order of the trial court.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on the record.
6. This Court has dealt with the similar issue in the case of Balkaran Singh v. State of Rajasthan , [S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 7824/2022] dated 21.11.2022. The relevant paragraphs of the order are being reproduced herein below:-
“It is significant to note here that the Passports Act, 1967 does not confer absolute power upon a citizen to obtain passport. Section 6 (1) & (2) of the Act prescribe certain conditions/eventualities when the passport authority is required to turn down request to make an endorsement or issue passport which includes a condition when an applicant is an accused in a criminal cas
