Pendency Of Investigation Cannot Be A Blanket Ground To Deny Permission For Foreign Travel: Rajasthan High Court

"The concern and anxiety of parents for the wellbeing of their son cannot be measured by the nature of medical advice or be made dependent upon his admission in a hospital." Rajasthan High Court, in a ruling dated September 29, 2026, held that the mere pendency of an investigation against an accused is not an absolute impediment to seeking permission for foreign travel, especially when the applicant is already protected against arrest.

Justice Farjand Ali, while allowing a criminal miscellaneous petition, observed that the right to travel is an integral facet of personal liberty and must be balanced against the requirements of the ongoing investigation.

The petitioners, facing an FIR registered under various sections of the BNS, 2023, sought permission to travel to the United States to attend to their ailing son scheduled for surgery. The trial court had previously rejected their application, citing the pending investigation and the apprehension that the petitioners might evade the legal process. The petitioners, who were already protected from arrest by a coordinate bench, challenged this order before the High Court.

The court was primarily called upon to determine whether the pendency of an investigation constitutes an absolute bar to an accused’s request for temporary foreign travel. Further, the court addressed whether medical necessity for parental travel must be restricted to cases involving hospital admission, as opposed to outpatient treatment.

Right to Travel as Personal Liberty

The court emphasized that while an individual may be an accused in a criminal case, they retain their fundamental right to personal liberty, which encompasses the right to travel. The court noted that the bond of love and affection in the Indian cultural milieu makes it a natural human response for parents to rush to the side of an unwell child.

"The concern and anxiety of parents for the wellbeing of their son cannot be measured by the nature of medical advice or be made dependent upon his admission in a hospital."

Investigation and Flight Risk

The bench clarified that protection from arrest does not grant immunity from investigation, but the investigating agency must demonstrate a specific necessity for the accused's physical presence to justify a travel ban. The court noted that in the absence of evidence showing that temporary travel would obstruct the probe, such requests should not be denied arbitrarily.

"The pendency of investigation, by itself, cannot be treated as an absolute impediment to the petitioners’ temporary foreign travel, particularly when they are already protected against arrest."

Distinction Between Trial and Investigation

The court reasoned that there is a significant legal distinction between the stage of investigation and the stage of trial. While the absence of an accused during trial could potentially impede proceedings, the current investigation could continue independently. The court found no material on record to suggest that the petitioners’ temporary absence would prejudice the state’s case.

Precedent on Familial Obligations

The High Court drew support from the decision in Mohammed Sadeeque v. State of Rajasthan, which held that denying an accused the opportunity to participate in significant family events causes irreparable emotional harm. The court reiterated that virtual attendance is an inadequate substitute for physical presence during life-altering family circumstances.

The High Court quashed the trial court's order dated August 7, 2026, and permitted the petitioners to travel abroad for a period not exceeding four months. Given that the petitioners were not on regular bail—having been granted protection against arrest during the pendency of a quashing petition—the court waived the requirement for bail bonds, accepting a personal undertaking instead. The court further directed immigration and police authorities not to effectuate any Look Out Circulars (LOC) to obstruct the petitioners’ travel.

Date of Decision: 29 September 2026