Court’s Decision
The Bombay High Court, through Justice R.N. Laddha, permitted an anticipatory bail applicant, facing charges under Sections 328, 323, 504 read with Section 34 of the IPC, to travel abroad from 18 August 2025 to 1 December 2025. The Court emphasised that the applicant had previously travelled abroad on 17 occasions with the Court’s permission and had “complied with all prior travel permissions” by returning to India within the stipulated time. Given her track record and the absence of objections from the prosecution and co-respondent, the Court allowed the application subject to strict safeguards.
Facts of the Case
The FIR, registered at Khar Police Station in 2016, arose from alleged marital disputes and included charges under the IPC for offences relating to administering harmful substances, voluntarily causing hurt, intentional insult, and common intention. The applicant sought permission to travel abroad for two purposes: first, to accompany her daughter for education-related requirements, and second, to attend to her own medical treatment. She assured the Court that the trip would not cause prejudice to the respondents and undertook not to seek adjournments in pending family court proceedings due to her travel.
Issues
The primary legal question before the Court was whether an accused, on anticipatory bail in a case involving serious IPC offences, should be granted permission to travel abroad for personal and family-related reasons, particularly when she had a history of compliance with earlier travel permissions.
Petitioner’s Arguments
Counsel for the applicant submitted that the FIR stemmed from marital discord rather than any criminal motive unrelated to the domestic context. They argued that the applicant had, on 17 prior occasions, travelled abroad with prior leave of the Court and, in each instance, had scrupulously adhered to all imposed conditions, including returning to India within the specified period. The applicant’s counsel assured the Court of her full cooperation with ongoing proceedings and reiterated that she would not seek adjournments or use her travel as a ground to delay the family court case.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State and the second respondent, represented through counsel, stated that they had no objection to the applicant’s proposed travel abroad provided she strictly complied with conditions to be imposed by the Court. This included furnishing her travel itinerary, stay details, and contact information to the investigating officer, as well as returning her passport within the stipulated period after her return.
Analysis of the Law
The Court examined the principles governing relaxation of bail conditions, particularly regarding foreign travel. It reaffirmed that the discretion to permit such travel hinges on the applicant’s past conduct, risk of absconding, and potential prejudice to the prosecution’s case. The Court noted that in previous instances, the applicant had complied with all travel conditions, which significantly weighed in her favour. The absence of objection from both the prosecution and co-respondent further supported the applicant’s plea.
Precedent Analysis
While the order did not cite specific judgments, the Court’s reasoning aligns with established precedent that consistent compliance with bail conditions, absence of risk to the trial, and lack of opposition from stakeholders can justify permission for foreign travel even in cases involving serious allegations.
Court’s Reasoning
Justice Laddha held that the applicant’s “consistent record of adhering to all prior permissions” demonstrated her reliability. The Court underscored that bail conditions must balance the rights of the accused with the needs of the criminal process, and where the risk of misuse is minimal, permission should not be unreasonably withheld. Given that the travel was for legitimate family and health reasons, and that the applicant undertook to abide by all safeguards, there was no compelling reason to deny her request.
Conclusion
The Court allowed the interim application, permitting the applicant to travel abroad from 18 August 2025 to 1 December 2025 subject to conditions:
- Furnishing itinerary, stay details, and contact information to the investigating officer.
- Filing an undertaking with the Court to return within the permitted period.
- Immediate return of her passport for travel and re-depositing it within one week after return.
The matter in the main criminal application is listed for further hearing on 4 January 2026.
Implications
This order underscores that a history of strict compliance with bail conditions can be decisive in securing permission for foreign travel. Even in cases involving serious IPC charges, courts may permit such travel if the applicant has proven reliability, the purpose is genuine, and adequate safeguards are imposed.
FAQs
1. Can an accused on anticipatory bail travel abroad?
Yes. Courts may allow such travel if the accused has a strong track record of compliance with bail conditions, provides legitimate reasons for travel, and offers adequate safeguards against absconding.
2. What safeguards are typically imposed for foreign travel by an accused?
Conditions may include furnishing the travel itinerary and contact details to the investigating officer, filing an undertaking to return, and depositing the passport after return.
3. Does compliance with previous permissions influence the Court’s decision?
Absolutely. A consistent history of returning within the permitted period significantly enhances the applicant’s chances of securing future travel permissions.
