The Delhi High Court recently emphasized that any conditions set by the court for allowing an undertrial to travel abroad must be followed strictly and without exception. The bench, led by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, rejected a plea challenging the forfeiture of a fixed deposit worth ₹2 lakhs after the accused failed to file an affidavit detailing his foreign travel itinerary.
The petitioner, facing trial under IPC Sections 376 (rape), 328 (causing hurt by poison), and 506 (criminal intimidation), was granted conditional permission to travel overseas. The Sessions Court, while allowing this travel, had directed him to submit an affidavit outlining his stay, contact number, and detailed itinerary.
Read Also:- Delhi High Court Orders Saket Gokhale to Issue Public Apology to Lakshmi Puri Over Defamatory Tweets
“The pre-condition of furnishing details of stay, itinerary, and contact number was not a mere formality – it was integral to ensuring that the Court retained effective control,” the High Court stated.
Despite multiple previous instances of compliance, the petitioner failed to submit the affidavit this time. He claimed the delay was due to an unforeseen incident—his car's side mirrors were stolen, and he was occupied with filing an FIR. He argued that this caused him to miss submitting the affidavit in time, although he had emailed his itinerary to the Court.
Read Also:- Delhi High Court: Mere Suspicion of Affair Not Enough to Prove Abetment of Suicide in Dowry Death Case
The Sessions Court, however, found this explanation insufficient. It ruled that the accused had violated the conditions of his travel permission and thus ordered the forfeiture of the ₹2 lakh fixed deposit receipt.
Justice Sharma took a firm stand on this issue. Highlighting the repeated permissions granted to the petitioner in the past, the Court concluded that he was well aware of the process and the obligations tied to his liberty.
“Once a conditional order is passed permitting a person facing a criminal trial to leave the country, such an order must be complied with strictly and in its entirety,” said Justice Sharma.
The Court further observed that the petitioner’s claim of urgency and subsequent forgetfulness was unacceptable. His failure to comply with a critical condition—even if unintentional—was treated as a serious lapse.
Read Also:- Delhi High Court Orders Forensic Probe Over Alleged Manipulation in JEE Main 2025 Scorecards
“The said requirement formed the very soul of the order granting liberty to travel abroad... the petitioner must bear the consequences that flow from such non-compliance,” the Court emphasized.
Ultimately, the High Court upheld the Sessions Court's decision and dismissed the petition.
Appearance: Mr. Chirag Aneja, Advocate for Petitioner; Mr. Manoj Pant, APP for State
Case title: Dinesh Aneja v. State Through Government Of NCT Of Delhi
Case no.: CRL.M.C. 4215/2022'
