The obligation of the state to ensure that restrictive conditions on travel are not imposed arbitrarily if they conflict with fundamental rights.

O R D E R

Dated this the 03^rd day of February, 2026 The petitioner is the 2^nd accused in S.C.No.1116/2019 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court-I, Ernakulam (‘Trial Court’, in short), which has originated from Crime No.OR/02/2018/NCB/SZ/COK/71 registered by the Narcotics Control Bureau, Kochi, alleging the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 8 (c) read with Sections 20 (b)(ii), 23(b), 27A, 28 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 , (‘NDPS Act’, in short).

2. The petitioner has stated in the Criminal Miscellaneous Case that, by Annexure A4 order, the petitioner was enlarged on bail by the Court of Sessions, Ernakulam on 31.10.2025 subject to conditions. As per Condition No.4 in the above order, the petitioner was directed to not to leave India without prior permission of the Trial Court. The petitioner has been scrupulously complying with the conditions in Annexure A4 order. The petitioner is currently employed in the United Kingdom as as Healthcare Support Worker. He has to pursue his employment for the purpose of sustaining his family and himself, especially since he is the sole bread winner of his family. The investigation in the case is complete and the complaint with respect to the 1^st accused has been filed. The petitioner has no criminal antecedents. He is willing to co-operate with the Investigating Officer and comply with any stringent condition that may be imposed by this Court. The petitioner is also willing to avail the electronic video linkage as per the provisions of the Electronic Video Linkage Rules for Courts (Kerala), 2021 (‘Rules’, for brevity). Therefore, Annexure A7 order may be set aside and the petitioner may be permitted to travel abroad for the purpose of his employment. Hence, the Crl.M.C.

3. The 2^nd respondent has, through its Public Prosecutor, filed a statement, inter alia, contending that the petitioner’s prayer to travel abroad is totally misconceived. Although the petitioner sought for relaxation of the conditions and to permit him to appear through his counsel, no separate application has been filed before the Trial Court. Mere undertaking made by the petitioner cannot be believed. The investigation in the case is not closed. The 2^nd respondent reserves its right to conduct further investigation. The physical presence of the petitioner is required to conduct an effective interrogation. The petitioner has a history of evading the process of law. Therefore, the Crl.M.C may be dismissed.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the 2^nd respondent.

5. The crime is of the year 2018. It is not disputed that the investigation in the crime so far as the 1^st accused concerned is complete and the complaint has been filed.

6. The 2^nd respondent contends that since the petitioner was absconding all through out the period, the investigation in the case, so far as the petitioner concerned, is not complete and the complaint has not been filed against him. Though the petitioner has sought for permission to travel abroad, the Court of Session has dismissed the application solely for the reason that the case against the petitioner was transferred to the Long Pending Register and the possibility of the petitioner absconding again cannot be ruled out.

7. It is well settled in Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar [ (1980) 1 SCC 81 ], that onerous conditions like restricting the travelling of an accused shall not be imposed in a casual manner. Moreover, in Menaka Gandhi v. Union of India and another [ AIR 1978 SC 597 ], the Hon’ble Supreme