Supreme Court Upholds International Travel Permission Requirement

The Supreme Court reinstated the condition of seeking prior permission for international travel in a case where the respondent sought modification of bail conditions granted by the Punjab & Haryana High Court. Despite arguments that the conditions were cumbersome, the Court emphasized personal liberty but upheld the travel restriction. The Court directed the trial court to promptly consider future travel permission applications, considering the investigating agency's input. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the modified conditions and emphasizing the need for expeditious handling of travel requests.

---

---

Issues:
1. Modification of conditions governing anticipatory bail.
2. Validity of the modification in the conditions of bail.
3. Right to travel abroad as part of personal liberty.
4. Consideration of significant change in circumstances for modifying bail conditions.

Analysis:

1. The respondent had sought modification of the conditions of anticipatory bail granted by the Punjab & Haryana High Court. The father of the victim challenged the modifications made in the bail conditions, leading to the matter being brought before the Supreme Court.

2. The Supreme Court reviewed the facts of the case, where the respondent was granted interim bail, which was later made absolute with conditions, including seeking prior permission to travel abroad. The respondent filed multiple applications for modification of bail conditions, arguing that the conditions were cumbersome and inconvenient due to frequent international travel.

3. The High Court, while modifying the bail conditions, considered the value of personal liberty and the necessity of restrictions on travel. It referred to judgments emphasizing personal liberty and dispensed with the requirement of prior permission for travel, based on the respondent's past travel history and participation in conferences abroad.

4. The petitioner argued that the modification of bail conditions was erroneous and contrary to the law. The respondent contended that since the charge-sheet had been filed, severe conditions impeding the right to travel abroad were unwarranted. The Supreme Court noted that no significant change in circumstances justified the modification and reinstated the condition of seeking prior permission for travel abroad.

5. The Court emphasized the importance of the right to travel abroad as part of personal liberty but upheld the condition of prior permission for international travel. It directed the trial court to expeditiously handle any future applications for travel permission, ensuring prompt consideration while taking into account the views of the investigating agency.

6. Ultimately, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order and restoring the original condition of securing prior permission before traveling abroad, emphasizing the need for expeditious handling of such applications by the trial court.

---