Right to travel abroad balanced against absconding risk and trial needs; no interference with look out circular.

The right to travel abroad was acknowledged as part of personal liberty, but the request for quashing or suspension of the look out circular was assessed against the seriousness of the allegations, availability of the accused for trial and confiscation proceedings, and the risk of absconding. The Court also relied on medical opinions showing that the proposed treatment was available in India and noted earlier conduct suggesting an attempt to leave the country. On that basis, the trial court's refusal to interfere was found to be in accordance with law, and no case for exercise of inherent jurisdiction was made out.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to quashing or suspension of the look out circular and permission to travel abroad for medical treatment.

Analysis: The Court noted that the right to travel abroad forms part of personal liberty, but the request had to be tested against the seriousness of the allegations, the need for the accused to remain available for trial and confiscation proceedings, and the risk of absconding. The Court relied on the fact that the medical treatment sought was available in India, as reflected in the medical opinions placed on record, and also considered the earlier conduct attributed to the petitioner in attempting to leave the country. In these circumstances, the Court held that the trial court had dealt with the matter in accordance with law and that no case was made out for interference in exercise of inherent jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to the requested relief and the challenge to the impugned order failed.

---