The Allahabad High Court has clearly stated that an accused who is out on bail cannot claim an automatic right to travel abroad for non-essential purposes such as attending a wedding or going on a vacation.
Justice Subhash Vidyarthi, while rejecting the plea of one Aditya Murti, underlined that such travel can only be allowed for urgent and necessary reasons.
Read Also: Once Goods Are Verified in MOV-04, Revenue Can't Shift Its Stand Later: Allahabad High Court
“An accused person who has been enlarged on bail can be granted permission to travel abroad for some pressing necessity like medical treatment, attending essential official duties and the like… wedding of a relative in a foreign country and pleasure trip to another country are not at all essential purposes for an under-trial accused person's visit abroad,” the Court observed.
Murti, booked under various sections of the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act, had approached the High Court challenging an order passed by the Special CBI Judge, Lucknow, which denied him permission to travel to the United States to attend the wedding of his father’s sister’s grandson. He also intended to visit Paris and Nice in France before returning to India.
Read Also: JEE Main Re-Exam Denied: Allahabad High Court Rejects Plea Citing Traffic Jam Delay
The Special Judge had refused the permission on the ground that both the High Court and the Supreme Court were monitoring the progress of the case. Therefore, his absence could cause unnecessary delays in the case’s disposal.
Murti’s counsel argued that the accused had been cooperating with the proceedings for over 15 years and his absence for just 22 days wouldn’t impact the case. It was also submitted that he had been granted permission to travel abroad on multiple earlier occasions and had always returned.
The High Court took note of the fact that the proceedings were initiated based on a CBI FIR and that the trial had already reached the defence evidence stage. The charges against Murti include offences under Section 120-B read with Section 420 IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Read Also: Allahabad High Court Slams Habit of Seeking Adjournments: Calls Litigants’ Role in Delays a “Menace”
The Court cited its earlier ruling in Jitendra v. State of UP (2022), which held that a person released on bail remains in the constructive custody of the Court.
“Therefore, the applicant does not enjoy the full liberties of a free man and reasonable restrictions can be imposed upon his freedom, including the restriction of his going out of the Country,” the Court stated.
Given this legal backdrop and the current stage of trial, the High Court concluded that Murti does not have the right to leave India simply to attend a wedding and undertake a pleasure trip.
Accordingly, the application was dismissed.
“When the trial has reached the stage of defence evidence, the applicant does not have the right to travel to the USA to attend the marriage of his relative and to France to enjoy a family pleasure trip,” the Court emphasized.
Appearances
Counsel for Applicant: Purnendu Chakravarty, Ambrish Singh Yadav, Amit Jaiswal Ojus Law, Pranjal Jain
Counsel for Opposite Party: Anurag Kumar Singh
Case title - Aditya Murti vs. Central Bureau Of Investigation/Anti Corruption Bureau Lko
