Foreign travel during pending criminal proceedings may be allowed on prior intimation when absconding risk is minimal.

A person facing pending criminal proceedings was permitted to travel abroad without obtaining prior permission in each instance, because the court treated the risk of absconding as minimal on the facts. The allowance was supported by the person's repeated past foreign travel and return without default, and by the fact that the criminal case had reached the charge-sheet stage with further proceedings yet to commence. The court required only prior intimation to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, with travel particulars before departure, and expressly stated that the direction was fact-specific and not a precedent.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant could be permitted to travel abroad by informing the criminal court concerned and furnishing travel details, instead of obtaining prior permission in every case, despite pendency of criminal proceedings.

Analysis: The appellant had travelled abroad on about 125 occasions and had returned to India each time without default. The pending criminal case had reached the stage where charge sheet had been filed and further proceedings were yet to commence. In these circumstances, the risk of absconding was treated as minimal, and the requirement of prior permission was relaxed in favour of a requirement to inform the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, with the relevant travel details before departure. The direction was made on the facts of the case and was expressly stated not to be treated as a precedent.

Conclusion: The appellant was permitted to travel abroad by informing the criminal court concerned and furnishing travel particulars; prior court permission was not insisted upon in the facts of the case.

---