The right to travel abroad is not a fundamental right; denial for non-essential travel does not violate legal provisions.

Order :

(Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

1. Heard Sri Purnendu Chakravarty, the learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Anurag Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the C.B.I.

2. By means of the instant application filed under Section 528 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (which will hereinafter be referred to as ‘ BNSS ’), the applicant has challenged the validity of an order dated 24.04.2025 passed by the Special Judge, CBI-5, Lucknow in Case No. 07/2012, arising out of F.I.R. No. RC0062010A0015, under Section 120-B I.P.C. read with Sections 420, 468, 471 and Section 13 (1) (d)/13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, P.S. CBI/ACB, District Lucknow and has sought permission to travel abroad to USA and France from 03.05.2025 to 22.05.2025 to attend the wedding function of son of the applicant’s cousin and to enjoy a family pleasure trip.

3. The applicant had filed an application dated 03.02.2025 before the trial Court seeking permission to go abroad for the aforesaid period stating that he is a Consultant in Sri Ram Murti Smarak Institute of Medical Sciences run by SRMS Trust, which is a public charitable Trust established in the year 1990. Son of the applicant’s cousin (grand-son of sister of the applicant’s father) is an American citizen residing at San Jose, USA, and he has invited the applicant to attend his wedding function at San Diego, California, USA.

4. As per the invitation sent to the applicant through e-mail, the wedding celebrations are scheduled between 03.05.2025 to 13.05.2025 at San Diego, California, USA. After the wedding event, the applicant and his family members have planned a trip to Paris and Nice (France) before returning to India. The travel tickets of the applicant and his wife have already been purchased.

5. The F.I.R. giving rise to the matter was lodged in the year 2010. After investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted for offences under Section 120-B read with Section 420 I.P.C. and Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the substantive offence under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, on 01.07.2011. The trial Court framed charges against the applicant for the offences under Section 120-B read with Section 420 I.P.C. and Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and no charge has been framed against the applicant for the substantive offence under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Statements of 36 prosecution witnesses have already been recorded and after recording of the statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the matter is fixed for defence evidence. The trial Court has recorded the submission made on behalf of the applicant that the applicant has travelled abroad on numerous earlier occasions with permission of the trial Court and he has not misused the liberty on any occasion and he has submitted that in his absence he will be represented by his counsel and the trial will not be delayed.

6. The trial Court has also recorded that the present case is one of the oldest matters and it is included amongst the cases regarding which an action plan has been made by the High Court for early disposal. Progress of the case is being monitored by the High Court as well as by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In these circumstances, in case the applicant is granted permission to travel abroad it might cause unwarranted delay in the disposal