The right to travel abroad is a fundamental aspect of personal liberty, protected by Article 21, and should only be restricted by lawful and just procedures.

JUDGMENT :

SUMEET GOEL, J.

1. Taking exception to the order dated 05.09.2025 (hereinafter referred to as ‘impugned order’) passed by SDJM, Gharaunda, District Karnal, Haryana (whereby the plea of the petitioner – herein for grant of permission to travel abroad has been declined), the petitioner has preferred the petition in hand. In essence, the petitioner is seeking permission to travel abroad for business related purpose(s).

2. Shorn of non-essential details, the relevant factual matrix of the lis in hand is adumbrated, thus:

(i) The petitioner (herein) is an accused, facing trial, in FIR No.158 dated 13.03.2018 registered under Sections 420 , 406, 409, 467, 468, 471, 474, 120-B, 380 and 34 of IPC . Challan (charge-sheet) already stands filed and trial is underway.

(ii) The petitioner (herein) had earlier sought for and was granted permission to travel abroad in November, 2023 to Sharjah and thereafter in June, 2024 to Doha. The petitioner has complied with the directions imposed upon him while being granted these permissions and is shown to have returned back in time.

(iii) The petitioner again filed an application for traveling abroad to different countries for business meetings but the said plea was declined vide the impugned order.

(iv) The petitioner has preferred the petition in hand with a revised itinerary pleading that he is required to travel abroad to different countries for business purpose(s) from October, 2025 to 03.12.2025 in different spells as detailed in paragraph 17 of the petition in hand, which reads thus:

“17. That it is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner has to visit different foreign countries due to his work & to earn his livelihood. The details of the following itinerary for his travel abroad is here as that from 15.10.2025 to 28.10.2025 petitioner has to visit Dubai, UAE, then following that on 02.11.2025 to 18.11.2025 he has to travel to Doha Qatar and lastly petitioner has to travel on 23.11.2025 to 03.12.2025 to Turkey. The petitioner has been invited to visit all three places for his business purpose. Copies of the invitation as well as itinerary annexed herewith as Annexure P-11.”

It is in the above backdrop that the instant petition has come up for hearing before this Court.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is a businessman and is frequently required to travel to different countries for his business meetings which are pertinent for his business activities. Learned counsel has iterated that the petitioner has been permitted to travel abroad twice in the past and he has scrupulously complied with conditions imposed upon him and has returned back in time. Learned counsel has further iterated that though the itinerary relied upon by the petitioner before the learned trial Court has since elapsed with the efflux of time, therefore, he has filed the instant petition with a revised itinerary to save on time. Learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner is willing to abide by all such terms and conditions as may be imposed upon him by this Court while permitting him to travel abroad.

4. Upon being called upon, the State has filed a status report/response by way of affidavit of Manoj Kumar, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Gharaunda, Karnal, relevant whereof reads thus:

“12. That order 05.09.2025, passed by the Ld. SDJM, Gharaunda, Karnal are legal and valid in the eyes of law. It i