Right to travel abroad may be regulated by proportionate safeguards; lapse of dates does not defeat a live family-reunion request.

The right to travel abroad, including for family reunion and preservation of foreign residency status, was treated as part of personal liberty and family life, to be regulated by proportionate safeguards rather than denied outright. Pendency of earlier cancellation proceedings, alleged non-cooperation in investigation, and merits-based accusations were not sufficient on these facts to bar travel, and lapse of the originally sought dates did not defeat the request because the underlying cause continued to survive. Permission to travel was therefore granted subject to stringent conditions, including sureties, a fixed travel window, an undertaking to return, restrictions on further travel, and production of the passport on return.

---

---

Issues: Whether pendency of the earlier bail-cancellation challenge, alleged non-cooperation in investigation, and the allegations on merits disentitled the petitioner from travelling abroad; whether the lapse of the originally sought travel period defeated the prayer; whether the additional grounds raised in the petition, including the need to preserve foreign residency status and family reunion, justified relief; and what conditions were necessary to secure the petitioner's presence and prevent evasion of justice.

Issue (i): Whether pendency of the earlier bail-cancellation challenge, alleged non-cooperation in investigation, and the allegations on merits disentitled the petitioner from travelling abroad.

Analysis: The earlier challenge to anticipatory bail had already been dismissed, the cancellation proceedings had been withdrawn after the petitioner and co-accused joined investigation, and the challan had been filed. The merits-based objections, including the purchase orders and alleged cheating, were not found sufficient to bar foreign travel in the facts of the case.

Conclusion: This issue was decided in favour of the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether the lapse of the originally sought travel period defeated the prayer.

Analysis: The requested travel was for family reunion and not for a time-bound event. The cause therefore continued to survive notwithstanding expiry of the earlier dates sought before the subordinate courts.

Conclusion: This issue was decided in favour of the petitioner.

Issue (iii): Whether the additional grounds raised in the petition, including the need to preserve foreign residency status and family reunion, justified relief.

Analysis: The petitioner's right to travel abroad was treated as part of personal liberty and family life, to be regulated rather than extinguished. The additional plea regarding permanent residency status was accepted as a relevant circumstance, and the Court held that refusal of permission could prejudice that right.

Conclusion: This issue was decided in favour of the petitioner.

Issue (iv): What conditions were necessary to secure the petitioner's presence and prevent evasion of justice.

Analysis: The Court balanced the travel right against the need to ensure appearance in trial and considered the pending cheque-bounce litigation, the absence of immovable property in India, and the risk of non-return. It imposed substantial sureties, a fixed travel window, an undertaking to return, restrictions on other travel, and obligations to produce the passport on return.

Conclusion: Relief was granted subject to stringent conditions securing the petitioner's return.

Final Conclusion: The petition succeeded and permission to travel abroad was granted for a limited period with safeguards designed to secure the petitioner's presence and protect the criminal process.

Ratio Decidendi: The right to travel abroad, including for family reunion, is a protected liberty that may be regulated by proportionate conditions to secure the accused's presence during trial, and lapse of the originally sought dates does not defeat the prayer where the underlying cause continues to survive.

---