The right to travel abroad for an accused facing trial must be balanced with the interest of justice; a trial court may reject such requests if the application lacks essential particulars like itinerary and supporting documents necessary to ensure the accused's return.

17/03/2026

1. The instant Criminal Misc. Petition has been instituted under Section 528 of the BNSS assailing the legality, propriety and correctness of the order dated 07.08.2025 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.3, Bikaner in Criminal Regular Case No. 5261/2020 (State vs. Abhijeet Beniwal & Ors.), arising out of FIR No.121/2020 registered at Police Station JNV Colony, Bikaner for offences punishable under Sections 458, 427 and 120-B IPC, whereby the application preferred by the petitioner seeking permission to travel abroad came to be rejected.

2. Succinctly stated, the factual matrix giving rise to the present petition is that FIR No.121/2020 dated 05.06.2020 was registered at Police Station JNV Colony, Bikaner for the aforesaid offences, pursuant to which the petitioner was arrested. Subsequently, he was enlarged on bail and is presently residing at his home address. The trial emanating from the said FIR is pending adjudication before the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.3, Bikaner and is registered as Criminal Regular Case No.5261/2020.

2.1. It is further borne out from the record that on 07.08.2025, the petitioner moved an application before the learned trial Court seeking permission to travel abroad. The learned trial Court, however, declined the said prayer primarily on technical and procedural considerations, inter alia observing that although a Coordinate Bench of this Court had, vide order dated 21.03.2025 passed in SBCRLWP No.5383/2025 (in light of the judgment rendered in Hardik Shah vs. Union of India & Ors. decided on 07.12.2021), granted liberty in principle, yet no concrete application disclosing complete travel particulars, nor any supporting documents such as visa, tickets, itinerary etc., had been furnished before the trial Court. Consequently, the application was rejected. Hence, the present petition.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have meticulously perused the material available on record, including the order impugned.

4. A careful scrutiny of the impugned order reveals that the learned trial Court has not rejected the prayer of the petitioner on merits touching upon the entitlement of the petitioner to travel abroad, but rather on account of absence of requisite particulars and supporting documentation necessary to enable the Court to judiciously exercise its discretion. The reasoning assigned reflects that the application suffered from a lack of material particulars, rendering it procedurally deficient.

4.1. It is trite that the right to travel abroad, though not absolute, is a valuable facet of personal liberty; however, when an accused is facing a criminal trial, such liberty is required to be balanced with the overarching interest of ensuring his availability for the due course of justice. The discretion vested in the trial Court, therefore, has to be exercised on the touchstone of relevant considerations such as the nature of allegations, stage of trial, likelihood of absconding, and, most importantly, the bona fides of the request demonstrated through complete disclosure of travel details.

4.2. In the present case, what is discernible is that the rejection of the petitioner’s application is not founded upon any adverse inference regarding his conduct or the gravity of accusations, but is primarily attributable to the absence of essential विवरण such as duration of travel, destination, purpose, itinerary and supporting documents. Such particulars are indispensable for the Court to impose appropriate safeguards, including conditions ensuring the petitioner’s return and continued participation