The Supreme Court has ruled that an accused person facing criminal proceedings cannot leave India without prior permission from the trial court, emphasizing that the constitutional right to travel abroad must be balanced against the victim's right to a speedy trial and the broader interests of justice.
A Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma passed the order while hearing an appeal arising from a long-pending criminal case in Telangana involving allegations linked to an unnatural death.
Background of the Case
The dispute traces back to 2014 when a complaint was lodged regarding the suspicious death of the appellant's father. Following investigation, police registered a criminal case against several persons, including Respondent No. 2, under provisions related to criminal conspiracy and abetment of suicide.
A chargesheet was filed in 2016. Over the years, the accused approached the High Court through multiple petitions seeking quashing of the proceedings and obtained interim protections. He later travelled to the United States and returned to India only in April 2025, when he was arrested at Hyderabad airport.
After his release, the accused sought the return of his passport. While the Magistrate allowed the passport to be released, the Sessions Court later directed him to deposit it. The High Court subsequently restored the Magistrate's order and permitted him to travel back to the United States subject to conditions. That order was challenged before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court noted that although nearly ten years had passed since the filing of the chargesheet, the trial had not yet commenced.
The Bench observed that the record showed a "pro-active role" of the accused in repeatedly seeking judicial intervention, which had contributed to delays in the progress of the criminal case.
The Court also expressed concern over the manner in which earlier proceedings were withdrawn after interim relief had been secured.
"The conduct of the respondent no. 2 in withdrawing such petitions before their final adjudication but after securing interim protection in his favour, raises serious doubts regarding his bona fides," the Bench observed.
Rejecting the argument that travel restrictions would violate Article 21 of the Constitution, the Court said constitutional rights must be balanced.
"The right to a speedy trial is equally an integral facet of Article 21," the Bench said, adding that individual liberty cannot be viewed in isolation from society's interest in the effective administration of criminal justice.
The Court further observed that the medical treatment cited by the accused as a reason for travelling abroad could also be obtained in India, noting that medical facilities available domestically were comparable to those available overseas.
Allowing the appeal in part, the Supreme Court set aside the Telangana High Court's order that had permitted the accused to travel to the United States. It also quashed the Sessions Court's direction requiring deposit of the passport.
However, the Court clarified that although the accused would retain possession of his passport, he would not be allowed to leave India without obtaining permission from the Sessions Court after committal of the case.
The Bench directed civil authorities, police officials and airport authorities to coordinate and ensure that the accused does not travel abroad without express permission from the Sessions Court.
The Court also encouraged expeditious completion of the committal process and clarified that its observations should not be treated as findings on the merits of the criminal case.
The appeal was disposed of accordingly.
Case Details:
Case Title: Seesa Santosh v. State of Telangana & Anr.
Case Number: Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 18022 of 2025
Judges: Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
Decision Date: June 4, 2026
