The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that an accused facing criminal proceedings cannot be denied permission to travel abroad merely because the proposed visit is for a social or celebratory purpose rather than an urgent or fundamental necessity, observing that the right to travel abroad is a basic human right forming an integral part of the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The single-judge Bench of Justice Y Lakshmana Rao made the observation while allowing a criminal revision petition filed by Devineni Avinash (Accused No. 31) and setting aside an order passed by the VI Additional Civil Judge-cum-Special Court for Trial of CID Cases, Guntur, which had refused to return his passport and permit him to travel to the United States to attend his cousin’s housewarming ceremony.
The Special Court had rejected the application on the ground that the proposed foreign visit was purely social in nature and did not constitute an urgent necessity warranting exercise of judicial discretion. Reversing the decision, the High Court held that such a distinction is unknown to law and cannot be used to curtail a person’s constitutional rights.
At the outset, the High Court considered the maintainability of the criminal revision petition under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It held that the impugned order refusing return of the passport and permission to travel abroad was an intermediate order and not a purely interlocutory order. Consequently, the statutory bar contained in Section 397(2) CrPC was held to be inapplicable, rendering the revision petition maintainable.
The single-judge Bench reiterated that the right to travel abroad was an intrinsic facet of personal liberty protected under Article 21. Placing reliance on the constitutional principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and reaffirmed in Satish Chandra Verma, IPS vs Union of India, the Court observed that the freedom to travel abroad was a recognised human right that enriches an individual’s personal autonomy, independent development and social existence.
The Court observed that constitutional protection of personal liberty extended beyond professional commitments, business obligations, medical treatment or emergencies. It also encompassed an individual’s private life, marriage, family relationships, friendships and social interactions. Consequently, permission to travel abroad cannot be refused merely because the proposed visit is intended to attend a family function or other social event.
Rejecting the reasoning adopted by the trial court, the High Court held that categorising the purpose of travel as “urgent” or “non-urgent” had no legal foundation and was inconsistent with the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty. The Court observed that the right to travel abroad also protects an individual’s private and family life, which may be seriously affected by an unreasonable refusal to permit foreign travel.
While considering the objections raised by the prosecution, the Court noted that the investigation was still pending and that the petitioner was also involved in other criminal cases, including one registered under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. However, it held that such concerns could be adequately addressed by imposing appropriate safeguards instead of imposing a blanket restriction on foreign travel.
The High Court also attached significance to the petitioner’s previous conduct. It noted that he had earlier travelled to Spain after obtaining permission from the competent court and had returned to India within the stipulated period in compliance with all conditions imposed, demonstrating that there was no material to indicate any likelihood of absconding or evading the judicial process.
Balancing the petitioner’s fundamental right to personal liberty with the interests of a fair investigation, the Court held that the ends of justice would be sufficiently protected by imposing reasonable conditions to secure his presence whenever required by the investigating agency or the trial court, rather than denying permission altogether. Accordingly, the High Court allowed the criminal revision petition, set aside the impugned order of the Special Court and directed the Investigating Officer to return the petitioner’s passport.
The petitioner was permitted to travel to the United States from July 3, 2026 to July 12, 2026, subject to furnishing his detailed travel itinerary to the concerned Station House Officer and the trial court before departure. He was further directed to return to India and report before the authorities on July 13, 2026, while remaining available for investigation and future court proceedings as and when required.
The post Andhra Pradesh High Court upholds accused’s right to travel abroad for family function under Article 21 appeared first on India Legal.