Bail conditions on foreign travel may be softened where prior intimation can protect investigation and preserve personal liberty.

Bail conditions restricting foreign travel must be tailored to necessity and cannot be imposed mechanically. Article 21 protects personal liberty, including travel abroad, so any curtailment must be justified by the needs of investigation and trial. Where the accused has cooperated and the investigation is substantially complete, advance disclosure of travel plans may adequately secure attendance. On that basis, a prior permission condition was modified to prior intimation to the Department with full itinerary details and a surety bond.

---

---

Issues: Whether the condition requiring prior permission of the Court before foreign travel, imposed while granting bail, should be modified to a condition of prior intimation to the Department, and whether continued surrender of the passport-related restriction was justified.

Analysis: The bail court must impose conditions that secure the presence of the accused for investigation, enquiry and trial, but such conditions cannot be applied mechanically. The right to personal liberty under Article 21 includes the right to travel abroad, and any restriction on movement must be justified by the needs of justice. A balance must be struck between the accused's liberty and the interests of investigation. Where the accused has cooperated, the investigation is substantially complete, and the purpose of securing attendance can be achieved by advance disclosure of travel plans, a requirement of prior permission may be unnecessarily burdensome. The court noted that advance intimation with full itinerary details would enable the Department to object if any proposed travel would prejudice investigation or trial.

Conclusion: The condition of prior permission before foreign travel was modified. The applicants were required to give seven working days' prior intimation to the Department with full travel details and to furnish a surety bond. The modification was granted in favour of the applicants.

Final Conclusion: The order recognised that bail conditions affecting overseas travel must be tailored to necessity, and that advance intimation can be an adequate safeguard where it preserves both liberty and the progress of the proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: A bail condition restricting foreign travel should not be imposed mechanically and may be modified where the same objective can be secured by a less restrictive safeguard that adequately protects investigation and trial.

---