Right to travel abroad under Article 21 may yield to pending trial, speedy justice, and passport restrictions in criminal cases.

The right to travel abroad under Article 21 was treated as part of personal liberty, but it was held subject to a judicial balance with the accused's obligation to face trial and the prosecution's right to a speedy trial. Where criminal proceedings remained pending for years, interim protections had delayed the trial, and comparable medical facilities were available in India, the High Court's permission to travel abroad was found unsustainable. The direction requiring deposit of the passport was restored in effect, while the accused was left free to seek leave from the Sessions Court later if travel became necessary.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in permitting the accused to travel abroad and in setting aside the order requiring deposit of his passport while criminal proceedings remained pending, and whether such restriction had to yield to the claim of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The criminal case had remained at the committal stage for years, and the accused had repeatedly approached the courts and obtained interim protections that impeded progress of the trial. The claim of medical need for travel abroad was weighed against the availability of comparable medical facilities in India, the pending criminal process, and the larger societal interest in effective administration of criminal justice. The right to travel abroad was treated as part of personal liberty, but it was held not to operate in isolation from the accused's obligation to face trial and the appellant's right to a speedy trial.

Conclusion: The High Court's order permitting travel abroad and interfering with the trial court's direction was unsustainable. The order requiring deposit of the passport was restored in effect, and the accused was left at liberty to seek permission from the Sessions Court after committal if travel abroad later became necessary.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded to the extent that the permission to travel abroad granted by the High Court was set aside, while the accused was given only a future liberty to seek leave of the Sessions Court in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: The right to travel abroad under Article 21 is subject to a judicial balance with the accused's obligation to face trial and the prosecution's right to a speedy trial, and may be restricted where criminal proceedings and the interests of justice so require.

---