Right to travel abroad is subject to reasonable restrictions where investigation, bail conditions, and lack of justification support refusal.

The right to travel abroad under Article 21 is not absolute and may be restricted by reasonable conditions during pending investigation. Here, the Delhi HC noted subsisting lookout circulars, bail conditions requiring prior permission for foreign travel, and the absence of convincing material showing a permanent Dubai address or genuine business necessity. On those facts, the petitioner failed to show sufficient cause to lift the existing restraints, so permission to travel abroad was refused and the challenge to the refusal order failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether permission to travel abroad was liable to be granted to the petitioner.

Analysis: The petitioner's request was examined in the context of pending investigation in the connected criminal and enforcement proceedings, the continued existence of lookout circulars, the bail conditions requiring prior permission for foreign , and the absence of convincing material showing a permanent Dubai address or a demonstrated business necessity. The right to travel abroad was recognised as part of personal liberty under Article 21, but it was held to be subject to reasonable restrictions where investigation and due process so required. On the facts found, the Court concluded that no sufficient cause was shown to displace the restrictions already operating against the petitioner.

Conclusion: Permission to travel abroad was rightly refused, and the petitioner's challenge to the impugned order failed.

Final Conclusion: The Court declined to interfere with the order refusing foreign and sustained the restraint on travel during the pendency of the investigations.

Ratio Decidendi: The fundamental right to travel abroad under Article 21 is not absolute and may be restricted where pending investigation, subsisting bail conditions, and the absence of cogent justification make foreign travel inconsistent with due process of law.

---