Foreign travel by an accused cannot be refused mechanically when attendance at trial can be secured by proportionate conditions.

An accused's request to travel abroad pending criminal proceedings must be tested against personal liberty, the need to secure attendance at trial, and whether proportionate conditions can adequately address any risk of abscondence. Where the accused has a history of compliance, sufficient roots in India, and a genuine business reason for travel, denial of permission is not justified merely on apprehension. On these facts, the risk of non-appearance was not persuasive, and the objective of securing attendance could be met through stringent safeguards. The refusal was therefore unsustainable, and permission to travel to South Africa was granted subject to itinerary disclosure and trial-court conditions.

---

---

Issues: Whether the accused was entitled to permission to travel to South Africa during the pendency of the criminal proceedings, subject to conditions ensuring his presence at trial.

Analysis: The request for foreign travel had to be assessed on the basis of personal liberty, the need to secure the accused's attendance at the inquiry and trial, and whether a complete denial was necessary or whether suitable safeguards could sufficiently address the prosecution's apprehension of abscondence. The relevant principles recognise that attendance may be dispensed with in appropriate cases and that restrictions on foreign travel must bear a proportional relationship to the risk involved. On the facts, the petitioner had prior travel history, had appeared without default, had roots in India, and the travel was connected with business requirements. The Court found that the apprehension of abscondence was not persuasive and that the objective of securing attendance could be met by imposing stringent conditions.

Conclusion: The accused was entitled to permission to travel abroad, and the refusal by the court below was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The impugned refusal was set aside and the petitioner was permitted to travel to South Africa, with directions to furnish itinerary details and comply with conditions to be imposed by the trial court.

Ratio Decidendi: A request by an accused to travel abroad cannot be denied mechanically where the risk to the trial can be managed by proportionate conditions securing attendance and the facts do not show a real likelihood of abscondence.

---