Supreme Court: Accused can be permitted to go abroad for his business or professional work

We are called upon to decide only whether the Appellant should be permitted to travel to the US for eight weeks. In evaluating this issue, we must have regard to the nature of the allegations, the conduct of the Appellant and above all, the need to ensure that he does not pose a risk of evading the prosecution. The details which have been furnished to the Court by the Appellant, indicate that he has regularly travelled between the US and India on as many as sixteen occasions between 2015 and 2020. He has maintained a close contact with India. The view of the High Court that he has no contact with India is contrary to the material on record. The lodging of an FIR should not in the facts of the present case be a bar on the travel of the Appellant to the US for eight weeks to attend to the business of revalidating his Green Card. The conditions which a court imposes for the grant of bail - in this case temporary bail - have to balance the public interest in the enforcement of criminal justice with the rights of the Accused. The human right to dignity and the protection of constitutional safeguards should not become illusory by the imposition of conditions which are disproportionate to the need to secure the presence of the Accused, the proper course of investigation and eventually to ensure a fair trial. The conditions which are imposed by the court must bear a proportional relationship to the purpose of imposing the conditions. The nature of the risk which is posed by the grant of permission as sought in this case must be carefully evaluated in each case.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 648 of 2020 

Decided On: 01.10.2020

Parvez Noordin Lokhandwalla Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud and Indira Banerjee, JJ.

Author:Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.

Citation: 2020 INSC 573, MANU/SC/0743/2020.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Whether accused involved in matrimonial offence can be permitted to accept Job Abroad?

 After hearing learned counsel for the parties, in our opinion, the permission sought by the appellant to travel abroad to join as Cyber Security Architect with a company in Belgium should not be denied, merely on account of pendency of the aforesaid case against him. It is not in dispute that the appellant is in India for the last more than one year, still the investigation has not been completed. In case the appellant is not allowed to go abroad to join the service, as has been offered to him, his career prospects may be affected. However, we grant permission to the appellant subject to the following conditions:

(i) The appellant will deposit a sum of ` 5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) with the Trial Court within two weeks which shall be kept in a fixed deposit in any nationalized bank initially for a period of one year and shall be renewed automatically thereafter, till either the appellant comes back or the trial is over. Specific order of the Trial Court shall be required to release that FDR;

(ii) The appellant shall furnish an undertaking before the Trial Court within two weeks that he will attend each and every hearing of the case, as and when chargesheet, if any, is filed and also attend the hearing personally in case the Court so requires; and

(iii) In case of his failure to comply with the undertaking given by him, the amount of ` 5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) shall stand forfeited to the State, on passing of order by the Trial Court. {Para 5}

6. The order dated 24th September, 2024 passed by the High Court stands modified to the extent mentioned above.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. ... of 2025

Date of Order: 09.12.2025

A.Mohammed Zaheer Vs. The State Rep . By The Inspector Of Police and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Rajesh Bindal and Manmohan, JJ.

Citation: MANU/SCOR/94504/2025

Print Page