Case at a Glance
Two persons charge-sheeted by the CBI in a Punjab National Bank cash-credit case were never arrested, and cognizance had not even been taken. When the trial court rescinded the Look Out Circular against them in April 2024, it still required them to obtain its prior permission before leaving the country. The Delhi High Court held that the right to travel abroad is part of personal liberty under Article 21 and that, with no arrest, no default and no non-cooperation shown, a prior-permission requirement for every trip could not be sustained. It replaced the condition with a duty to inform the trial court and the CBI at least two weeks before each trip, giving itinerary, duration, places of stay and contact details, while clarifying that the order rests on the peculiar facts and may not be treated as a precedent.
The CBI registered a case on a complaint by Punjab National Bank concerning a cash-credit facility extended to M/s Skyworld Exim. A charge sheet dated 31.03.2023 was filed against Rajnish Gupta under Sections 120-B, 420, 468 and 471 IPC, and a supplementary charge sheet dated 23.06.2023 against Nisha Gupta. Neither was arrested during investigation, and by the time of the High Court’s decision cognizance had not been taken and no summons had been issued.
A Look Out Circular had been opened against them during investigation. By order dated 30.04.2024 the trial court rescinded it, recording that they had joined the investigation, but directed that they would not leave the country without its prior permission. They petitioned the High Court under Article 226 read with Section 528 BNSS to set aside that condition, relying on Karti P. Chidambaram v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2025) 10 DEL CK 1840 to argue that prior intimation would suffice. The CBI argued that the case involved serious economic offences and that prior permission was a reasonable safeguard, citing Seesa Santosh v. State of Telangana, (2026) 06 SC CK 0162.
The Key Question Before the Court
Can accused persons who were never arrested, and against whom cognizance has not yet been taken, be required to seek the trial court’s prior permission before every foreign trip?
Restrictions on travel must fit their purpose
Justice Ravinder Dudeja noted the undisputed position: the charge sheet was filed without arrest, cognizance had not been taken, no summons had been issued, and there was no material showing non-cooperation or default. The trial court itself, while rescinding the LOC, had recorded that the petitioners joined the investigation and that the LOC was not justified. No bail condition restricted their travel.
The Court held that travel abroad is part of personal liberty under Article 21. Restrictions are permissible if backed by law and needed to secure the presence of an accused, but “the restriction must be reasonable in connection with the purpose.” On these facts, a requirement to seek permission for each foreign trip during the trial could not be sustained; it could cause procedural hardship and undue restriction despite there being no misuse. The legitimate concern of securing their presence could be met through advance intimation and an undertaking to remain available.
What the Court Actually Held
- The right to travel abroad is part of personal liberty under Article 21; restrictions must be reasonable in relation to the purpose of securing the accused’s presence.
- Where the accused were never arrested, cognizance has not been taken and no default or non-cooperation is shown, a prior-permission requirement for every foreign trip cannot be sustained.
- The condition in the order dated 30.04.2024 is modified: each petitioner must inform the trial court and the investigating agency at least two weeks before each trip of the full itinerary, duration, places of stay and contact details.
- The petitioners must remain available for the proceedings and cannot seek adjournments on account of travel; the other directions of the trial court stand, and the order is on peculiar facts and may not be treated as a precedent.
Why This Judgment Matters
- Prior-permission conditions are routinely imposed on accused persons in economic offence cases, and each trip can mean a fresh application and hearing.
- The ruling shows a proportionate alternative, advance intimation with full travel details, where the accused has a clean record of cooperation.
- It applies the Article 21 right to travel abroad at the pre-cognizance stage, where the accused has not even been summoned.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Accused Persons
- If you were never arrested and have cooperated, you can seek modification of a blanket prior-permission condition on travel.
- Be prepared to give full itinerary, duration, places of stay and contact details in advance.
- You must remain available for hearings; travel is not a ground for adjournment.
For Counsel
- Build the record of cooperation: joining investigation, no arrest, no default, and any finding that an LOC was unjustified.
- Offer prior intimation as the less restrictive alternative, citing Karti P. Chidambaram v. CBI.
- Note that the Court said the order may not be treated as a precedent; frame relief on the specific facts of each case.
Key Takeaways
- Travel abroad is part of personal liberty under Article 21.
- Restrictions on travel must be reasonable in relation to securing the accused’s presence.
- A blanket prior-permission condition was replaced with two weeks’ advance intimation.
- The order was expressly confined to its peculiar facts.
Frequently Asked Questions
Do accused persons always need court permission to travel abroad?
Not necessarily. In this case the Delhi High Court replaced a prior-permission condition with a requirement of two weeks’ advance intimation, because the accused were never arrested, cognizance had not been taken and no default was shown.
What details must be given before travel?
The full itinerary, duration of travel, places of stay and contact details, to both the trial court and the investigating agency, at least two weeks before each trip.
Is this a binding precedent for all cases?
The Court stated that the order was passed on the peculiar facts of the case and may not be treated as a precedent, though its reasoning on Article 21 and proportionality can be relied on in similar circumstances.
Conclusion
The decision is a practical application of proportionality. Securing an accused’s presence at trial is a legitimate aim, but where the accused have cooperated and were never arrested, the Court held that advance intimation serves that aim without requiring permission for every journey.
Practical takeaway: Where a travel restriction is unrelated to any bail condition and the accused has a clean record of cooperation, apply for modification to a prior-intimation regime, offering full travel details and an undertaking to attend.
Read the full judgment on CourtKutchehry: View judgment →
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com