The right to travel abroad is a fundamental right, but it is not an absolute right and is subject to certain limitations. The court can restrict the right to travel abroad in order to ensure the presence of the accused at the trial and to prevent him from fleeing the country, provided that such restriction is reasonable and proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued.

M. VENUGOPAL, J.

1. The Petitioner/A5, has focused the instant Criminal Revision Petition, against the order dated 13.06.2014, in CMP No. 385 of 2014 in C.C. No. 1 of 2014 on the file of the learned II Additional District Judge/Special Judge (CBI Cases), Coimbatore.

2. The learned II Additional District Judge/Special Judge (CBI Cases), Coimbatore, while passing the impugned order in CMP No. 385 of 2014 (filed by the Petitioner/A5) had among other things observed that the Petitioner/Accused viz. K. Zahir Hussain has not filed any materials to show that he is doing Garment Business at Dubai and also not produced any documents to show that he has to visit Dubai necessarily and resultantly, dismissed the petition.

3. Assailing the correctness of the order dated 13.06.2014 in CMA No. 385 of 2014 in C.C. No. 1 of 2014 passed by the trial Court, the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner/A5 contends that the Petitioner/A5, has a strong root in the society and denial of his right to go abroad by the trial Court would amount to depriving his right to lead a comfortable life, which is a fundamental one as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner projects an argument that no one could be deprived of his right to travel abroad in terms of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, except according to procedure established by law.

5. The learned counsel for the Petitioner cites a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suresh Nanda vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2008 (3) SCC 674, at Special Page 677, whereby and whereunder in Paragraph Nos. 4 and 5, it is observed as follows:-

"4. Learned senior counsel for the appellant also placed reliance on the decision of 5- Judge Bench of this Court in Satwant Singh Sawhney vs. D. Ramarathnam, Assistant Passport Officer, AIR 1967 SC 1836: (1967) 3 SCR 525 wherein in para 32, it was held as under:-

"For the reasons mentioned above, we would accept the view of Kerala, Bombay and Mysore High Courts in preference to that expressed by the Delhi High Court. It follows that under Article 21 of the Constitution no person can be deprived of his right to travel except according to procedure established by law. It is not disputed that no law was made by the State regulating or depriving persons of such a right."

5. A similar view is reiterated in the decision rendered by Judge Bench of this Court in Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India and another (1978) 1 SCC 248 wherein at page 280-81, para 5 it was held as under:

"Now, it has been held by this Court in Satwant Singh's case (supra) that personal liberty within the meaning of Article 21 includes within its ambit the right to go abroad and consequently no person can be deprived of this right except according to procedure prescribed by law. Prior to the enactment of the Passports Act, 1967, there was no law regulating the right of a person to go abroad and that was the reason why the order of the Passport Officer refusing to issue passport to the petitioner in Satwant Singh's case (supra) was struck down as invalid. It will be seen at once from the language of Article 21 that the protection it secures is a limited one. It safeguards the right to go abroad against executive interference which is not supported by law; and law here means enacted law or State law (Vide A.K. Gopalan's case). Thus, no person can be deprived of his right to go abroad unless there is a law made by the State prescribing the procedure for so depriving him and the deprivation is effected strictly in accordance with such procedure."

6. Also in the aforesaid decision, the learned counsel for the Petitioner/A5 refers to Special Page 678 and 679 whereby and whereunder in Paragraph Nos. 10 to 12 and 14 to 19, it is observed and held as under:-

10. Thus, the Act is a special Act relating to a matter of passport, whereas Section 104 of the Cr. P.C. Authorizes the Court to impound document or thing produced before it. Whe