Back
Not Bar For Parents To Travel For Son's Surgery:
A Parental Bond That Cannot Be Measured
The has ruled that the pendency of a criminal investigation cannot be treated as an against temporary foreign travel for accused individuals, especially when compelling family circumstances are involved. Justice Farjand Ali, presiding over a single bench, allowed Mahesh Kumar Gupta, his wife Chanda Gupta, and their son Vinayak Gupta to travel to the United States to attend to their son’s scheduled surgical procedure, quashing a trial court order that had denied permission.
The Case and the Trial Court’s Reluctance
The petitioners are accused in an FIR registered at , under . The FIR was already under challenge before the High Court, which had granted the petitioners . When they sought permission to travel abroad for their son’s surgery—backed by medical documents, passports, and a confirmed itinerary—the trial court rejected the application, citing the pending investigation and a fear that the accused might flee India.
Arguments: Family Duty vs.
, representing the petitioners, argued that the dispute was essentially and that the interim ensured the petitioners’ return. , appearing for the State, countered that the medical advice was merely on an OPD basis and did not contemplate hospitalization, making the travel request unnecessary. He further contended that allowing the petitioners to leave the country would hamper the investigation.
When Hospitalisation Is Not the Only Measure
The court firmly rejected the State’s submission. Justice Ali observed: “Hospitalisation cannot be regarded as a for a parent to attend upon an ailing child. The concern and anxiety of parents for the wellbeing of their son cannot be measured by the nature of medical advice or be made dependent upon his admission in a hospital.”
Highlighting the cultural context, the judge added: “In the Indian social and cultural milieu, the bond of love and affection between parents and their child carries its own significance. If a son is unwell, the natural instinct of the parents is to rush to his side.”
Investigation Can Proceed Independently
The court clarified that does not confer immunity from investigation and that the investigating agency is free to proceed. However, it noted that no material had been presented to show that the petitioners’ temporary absence would obstruct or prejudice the probe. Distinguishing between the and the necessity of physical presence at every stage, the court held that “the , by itself, cannot be treated as an to the petitioners’ temporary foreign travel.”
The judgment drew support from the ’s decision in , where similar permission was granted for attending a family event.
The Decision: Four Months Abroad, Unhindered Travel
Allowing the petition, the court quashed the trial court’s order dated . The petitioners are now permitted to travel abroad for a period of four months from their immigration check-out. No or were required, given that the petitioners are not on bail but operating under . An furnished before the court was deemed sufficient.
The court further directed the , immigration authorities, and police agencies not to obstruct the petitioners’ travel, and ordered that any issued against them shall not be effectuated to impede their passage.
The decision underscores that genuine familial duties, such as attending to a child’s surgery, outweigh the of , especially when the accused have already secured and the investigation can proceed independently.
