The "exigencies of medical treatment to be undergone" by the Respondent no.2 and that "he has appeared before the Magistrate Court on the last 12 occasions" coupled with his undertaking to return to India within 6 (six) months were considered good enough reasons by the High Court to interfere in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Having regard to the trajectory of the proceedings right from the date the FIR was registered, the conduct of the Respondent no.2, the nature of his ailment, and the medical facilities available in India (which, we believe, are comparable with any facility available in any foreign country), we have no doubt in our mind that the High Court instead of exercising judicial restraint was indulgent towards the Respondent no.2 and permitted him to travel to the USA even though all medical facilities exist domestically. {Para 9}
10. An argument has been advanced on behalf of the Respondent no. 2 that imposing a condition requiring deposit of his passport or mandating prior permission of the Court before travelling abroad would amount to an infringement of his fundamental right Under Article 21 of the Constitution. Suffice it to observe that the right to a speedy trial is equally an integral facet of Article 21. While Article 21 undoubtedly guarantees the fundamental right to personal liberty, which includes the right to travel abroad, such right cannot be viewed in isolation. A balance must be struck between the individual liberty of the Respondent no. 2 on the one hand and the right of the Appellant to a speedy trial together with the larger societal interest in ensuring the effective administration of criminal justice, on the other.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Criminal Appeal No. 3048 of 2026
Decided On: 04.06.2026
Seesa Santosh Vs. The State of Telangana and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Dipankar Datta and S.C. Sharma, JJ.
Author: Dipankar Datta, J.
Citation: 2026 INSC 628,MANU/SC/0616/2026
Print Page