Right to travel abroad may be curtailed where fraud allegations and absconding risk justify refusal of foreign travel permission.

The right to travel abroad is not absolute and may be restricted where serious criminal allegations and surrounding circumstances create a real risk of absconding or obstructing trial. On the facts, the charge-sheet alleged a large-scale fraud, the trial was at an advanced stage, no concrete business necessity for foreign travel was shown, and earlier conduct together with asset attachment supported apprehension of evasion. Permission to travel abroad was therefore declined and the trial court's refusal was left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to permission to travel abroad pending trial despite serious allegations of fraud and the possibility of fleeing from the process of law.

Analysis: The petition arose from refusal of permission to travel abroad. The charge-sheet disclosed serious allegations of a large-scale fraud and the trial was at an advanced stage. The Court noted that the petitioner had not shown any concrete business necessity for foreign and that the surrounding circumstances, including earlier conduct and the attachment of assets, supported the apprehension that granting permission could facilitate evasion of trial. The right to travel abroad was held not to be absolute and could be curtailed where the facts justified such restraint.

Conclusion: The refusal to grant permission to travel abroad was upheld and the petition was dismissed.

Final Conclusion: Permission to travel abroad was declined because the case involved serious allegations and a real risk of absconding, so no interference with the trial court's order was warranted.

Ratio Decidendi: The right to travel abroad is not absolute and may be restricted where the accused faces serious criminal allegations and the circumstances indicate a risk of absconding or obstructing the trial.

---