Travelling abroad is often seen as a privilege, a way to attend family events or simply escape the stress of daily life. However, the Allahabad High Court recently made it clear that bail does not automatically provide an accused person with the freedom to travel internationally for non-essential purposes such as attending a wedding or going on a vacation.

A Legal Request for International Travel

The case at hand involved Aditya Murti, a consultant from the Shri Ram Murti Smarak Institute of Medical Sciences in Bareilly, who is currently facing trial in a case filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). Murti had filed a plea seeking permission to travel abroad to attend a family wedding in the United States from May 3 to May 22, followed by another event in France. Despite having travelled abroad previously, Murti’s request was rejected by the Special CBI Court, prompting him to approach the Allahabad High Court for a final verdict.

The Court’s Perspective on Foreign Travel During Trial

Justice Subhash Vidyarthi, who presided over the case, emphasised a significant point that bail is a liberty granted to an accused, but it is not absolute. It does not provide unrestricted freedom to travel internationally, especially for non-essential purposes like weddings or leisure trips. According to the Allahabad High Court, permission for travel abroad should be granted only for pressing needs such as medical treatment or official duties.

Murti’s lawyer had argued that the accused had been allowed to travel internationally on previous occasions, even for non-essential purposes. Relying on this, they contended that his request should be granted once again. However, the Court made it clear that previous permissions do not create an entitlement. The mere fact that the accused had been allowed to travel abroad in the past could not be a valid reason for approving the current request, particularly when the trial was now in its later stages.

The Need for Responsible Use of Bail

The Allahabad High Court pointed out that the trial in this case had been pending for over a decade. Furthermore, the Supreme Court had already directed that the trial should be completed as soon as possible. Any delay in the trial, the Court noted, could be exacerbated by granting permission for such international travel. The Allahabad High Court stressed that attending a wedding, though a significant personal event, does not constitute a “pressing necessity” under the law.

Upholding the Importance of Justice and Trial Progress

In its ruling, the High Court dismissed Murti’s petition and upheld the order passed by the Special CBI Court. The Allahabad High Court reaffirmed that the liberty granted through bail must always be exercised in a manner that upholds the larger interests of justice and ensures the trial progresses without unnecessary interruptions.

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and reflects the author’s interpretation of the Allahabad High Court decision. It is not intended to provide legal advice. Please consult a legal professional for advice regarding specific legal matters.

Also Read:

Supreme Court Says No Trial for Expired Lawsuits

Uniform Civil Code is Not Just Law, It’s Humanity, Says Karnataka HC

Evolution and Scope of Administrative Law