Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!

Scanned Judgements…!

Checking relevance for Barun Chandra Thakur VS Ryan Augustine Pinto...

Checking relevance for Parvez Noordin Lokhandwalla VS State of Maharashtra...

Parvez Noordin Lokhandwalla VS State of Maharashtra - 2021 3 Supreme 281 : The judgment in Barun Chandra Thakur v. Ryan Augustine Pinto, Criminal Appeal No. 1618 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 9873 of 2019) order dated 21 October 2019, states that even if there are no explicit conditions on regular bail, the accused cannot travel abroad without the permission of the court. The Court observed that the condition for seeking prior permission before travelling abroad is a crucial ingredient that was engrafted as a condition for the grant of anticipatory bail, and that such a condition could not be deleted altogether, emphasizing that the right to travel abroad, while valuable, is subject to judicial oversight to ensure the proper administration of justice.Checking relevance for Ganpati Ramnath VS State Of Bihar...

Checking relevance for K. Mohammed VS State of Kerala...

Checking relevance for GANAPATI RAMNATH VS STATE OF BIHAR...

Checking relevance for Disha A. Ravi VS State (NCT) of Delhi)...

Checking relevance for Abhilasha Rajgarhia VS State of W. B. ...

Checking relevance for Rxxxxx Dxxxxx VS State of Haryana...

Checking relevance for Rubi Shatir VS State of NCT of Delhi...

Rubi Shatir VS State of NCT of Delhi - 2023 0 Supreme(Del) 5590 : The court held that even if there are no explicit conditions on regular bail, the accused cannot travel abroad without the prior permission of the court, particularly in cases involving serious allegations such as rape under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. The court emphasized that the right to travel abroad is not absolute and is subject to reasonable restrictions in the interest of justice. It specifically stated that the accused cannot be set absolutely free to leave the country whenever they deem fit without the prior permission of the court, especially when the chargesheet has been filed and charges have not yet been framed. This principle was upheld based on the Supreme Court''''s precedent in Barun Chandra Thakur v. Ryan Augustine Pinto, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1899, which affirmed that the precondition of securing prior permission before travelling abroad is a crucial ingredient in the grant of anticipatory bail and cannot be diluted without a significant change in circumstances.Checking relevance for Milen Ivanov Davranski vs Union of India...

Checking relevance for Sanjay Grover VS Director of Enforcement...

Sanjay Grover VS Director of Enforcement - 2023 0 Supreme(Del) 4332 : The court held that even if the accused has been granted regular bail without conditions, they cannot travel abroad without the permission of the court, as the fundamental right to travel is subject to restrictions in consonance with the gravity of the case. The court emphasized that the accused could not leave India without the court''''s permission, particularly because the case involved serious allegations of money laundering, and thus required prior approval for international travel.Checking relevance for Sushila Aggarwal and others VS State (NCT of Delhi)...

Checking relevance for Prahlad Singh Bhati VS N. C. T. , Delhi...

Checking relevance for Prahlad Singh Bhati VS N. C. T. Of Delhi...

Checking relevance for Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre VS State of Maharashtra...

Checking relevance for Bharat Chaudhary VS State Of Bihar...

Checking relevance for P. CHIDAMBARAM VS CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION...

Checking relevance for Rizwan Akbar Hussain Syyed VS Mehmood Hussain and Anr...

Checking relevance for Ryan Augustine Pinto VS Central Bureau of Investigation...

Checking relevance for Dinesh Aneja vs State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)...

Checking relevance for G. Vetrivel Sami & Swami VS C. B. I. ...

• Court Orders on Travel Restrictions - Courts have consistently held that even if there are no explicit conditions on regular bail, the accused cannot travel abroad without obtaining prior permission from the court. Multiple judgments emphasize that prior permission is a mandatory condition for international travel during bail or investigation, regardless of whether specific restrictions are imposed ["IND_Delhi_CRLMC-2896_2022"], ["IND_Delhi_CRLMC-2896_2022"], ["UNION OF INDIA vs MANSOOR ABDULLA K.S - Karnataka"], ["INDEL00000067782"], ["INTEL00000215807"], ["INKAR00000101521"], ["INKER00000455331"], ["INDEL00000024208"], ["KIRTI VISHWANATH KEDIA vs CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (EOB) AND ANR. - Bombay"], ["INDEL00000041059"].

• Main Points and Insights:

• Courts have frequently reiterated that accused persons in bail or investigation stages must seek prior permission before traveling abroad, even if bail conditions do not explicitly prohibit it IND_Delhi_CRLMC-2896_2022_Delhi_CRLMC-2896_2022; INDEL00000024208.
• Permission to travel is generally granted conditionally, often requiring the accused to deposit passports and furnish reasons, but the core requirement remains that prior court approval is necessary IND_Delhi_CRLMC-2896_2022_Delhi_2022_DHC_002691; INDEL00000067782; INKAR00000101521.
• Courts have emphasized that such conditions aim to ensure the accused's participation in trial proceedings and prevent flight, and that these are reasonable restrictions even absent explicit bail conditions IND_Delhi_CRLMC-2896_2022_Delhi_CRLMC-2896_2022; INDEL00000024208.
• Several judgments have clarified that even in cases where the accused has previously traveled abroad with permission and complied with conditions, the court retains the authority to deny permission if investigation or gravity of the case warrants it INTEL00000215807; INDEL00000041059.

• The principle that even if there are no conditions on regular bail, the accused cannot travel abroad without court permission is well-established and consistently upheld in Indian jurisprudence IND_Delhi_CRLMC-2896_2022_Delhi_CRLMC-2896_2022; INDEL00000024208.

• Analysis and Conclusion:

• The consistent judicial stance across multiple cases confirms that the requirement of obtaining prior permission from the court before traveling abroad is a fundamental legal condition during bail or investigation stages in India. This requirement applies regardless of whether bail conditions explicitly restrict international travel, reinforcing the notion that such permission is a necessary safeguard to prevent flight risk and ensure compliance with legal proceedings.

References:- IND_Delhi_CRLMC-2896_2022_Delhi_CRLMC-2896_2022- IND_Delhi_CRLMC-2896_2022_Delhi_2022_DHC_002691- UNION OF INDIA vs MANSOOR ABDULLA K.S - Karnataka- INDEL00000067782- INTEL00000215807- INKAR00000101521- INKER00000455331- INDEL00000024208- KIRTI VISHWANATH KEDIA vs CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (EOB) AND ANR. - Bombay- INDEL00000041059