Right to travel abroad under Article 21 is a fundamental right, subject to reasonable restrictions.

O R D E R Dated this the 12^th day of February, 2026 The petitioner is the accused in S.C. No.187/2025 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge-VII, Ernakulam (Trial Court), which has originated from O.R. No. 8 of 2024 registered by the Narcotic Control Bureau, Kochi, alleging the commission of the offences punishable under Section 22 (c), 23(c) 27A and 28 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act .

2. The petitioner has stated in the Criminal Miscellaneous Case that, he has been falsely implicated in the crime. He has been a resident of Qatar since 2018 and has been running a software solutions company there since then. The petitioner was enlarged on bail by the Trial Court, subject to conditions. As per condition No.(1) in the bail order, the petitioner was directed not to leave the State of Kerala without the permission of the above court. Since the petitioner has to travel to Qatar for the purpose of his business, he filed an application seeking permission. However, by Annexure 6 order, the Trial Court has dismissed the application, for the reason that since the petitioner’s residency permit in Qatar has expired on 29.12.2024. Furthermore, he is an accused for an offence under the NDPS Act, involving commercial quantity. Annexure 6 order is unreasonable and unjustifiable.

Hence, the Crl.M.C.

3. The respondent has filed an objection, inter alia, stating that, the petitioner was enlarged on bail subject to stringent conditions. As per condition No.(1)he has been directed not to leave the State of Kerala without the permission of the Trial Court. Although he sought for permission to permit him to travel abroad, the same has been dismissed by the Trial Court. The order of the Trial Court is well reasoned and balanced. As the trial in the case is at an advanced stage, the charge has already been framed. There is every likelihood of the case getting protracted, if the petitioner is permitted to go abroad.

Hence, the Crl.M.C. may be dismissed.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent.

5. The petitioner was enlarged on bail on

15.07.2025. As per the condition No.(1) in the said order, the petitioner has been directed not to leave the State of Kerala. It may be true that the investigation in the case is complete and the complaint has been filed, and further the charge has been framed in the case. However, it is not discernible when the trial in the case would commence, immediately.

6. It is well-settled in the celebrated judgment of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and Another [ 1978 KHC 477 ] that right to travel abroad is a fundament right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India . The same view has been taken by the Honourable Supreme Court in Hussainara Khatoon & Ors. v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar [ (1980) 1 SCC 81 ]

7. Keeping in mind the principles laid down in the afore-cited decisions, this Court in Abhil C.R. v. State of Kerala [ 2025 KHC OnLine 1650 ], has permitted the accused persons to avail the electronic video linkage as per the provisions of the Electronic Video Linkage Rules for Courts (Kerala), 2021 ( Rules, in short), including to appear for the trial, framing of charges and also questioning them under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. The above principle has been reiterated by this Court in in Rameshan v. State of Kerala ( 2025 (6) KHC 545 ).

8. On considering the fact that the charge in the case has just been framed, and further that there is no likelihood of the trial commencing in the near future, I am of the definite view that the petitioner’s prayer to permit him to travel abroad can be allowed, otherwise it may jeopardise his entire business and cause loss and hardship. Thus, I am inclined to exerc