Supreme Court Allows Green Card Holder to Travel Abroad During Bail, Balancing Right to Travel with Conditions of Bail. The court held that the High Court erred in refusing permission solely on the ground of an FIR being registered, without considering the appellant's consistent travel history and the risk of losing his Green Card.

  • 10
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The appellant, Parvez Noordin Lokhandawalla, an Indian citizen and US Green Card holder since 2010, has resided in the US since 1985. A private complaint was filed in January 2014 alleging fabrication of a Power of Attorney by forging his brother's signature. The JMFC ordered investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC, leading to an FIR on 22 April 2014 for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 469, 470, 471, and 474 IPC read with Section 34. The Sessions Court granted anticipatory bail to the co-accused but the appellant's interim protection was cancelled when his counsel withdrew the application. The appellant visited India sixteen times between 2015 and 2020. He was arrested on 21 February 2020 at Mumbai airport pursuant to a look-out notice. The High Court granted temporary bail on 19 May 2020 for eight weeks, subject to conditions including surrender of passport and not leaving Thane Police Commissionerate without permission. The appellant sought modification to travel to the US for eight weeks to revalidate his Green Card, as US immigration law requires return within 180 days to avoid abandonment of permanent resident status. The High Court refused, citing the pending FIR. The Supreme Court, noting the time-sensitive nature, requested the High Court to decide early, but the High Court again declined. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's refusal was unjustified, as the appellant had a consistent travel history and the risk of losing his Green Card was a serious consequence. The court allowed the appeal, permitting the appellant to travel to the US subject to conditions including furnishing a bond of Rs. 5 lakhs, surrendering his passport to the trial court upon return, and reporting to the investigating agency. The court emphasized that the right to travel is a fundamental right under Article 21, and bail conditions must balance liberty with the need to secure the accused's presence.

Headnote

A) Criminal Law - Bail Conditions - Right to Travel Abroad - Section 439 CrPC - The court considered whether conditions of bail can be relaxed to allow an accused to travel abroad for revalidation of a Green Card, balancing the right to travel with the need to secure the accused's presence at trial - Held that the High Court erred in refusing permission solely on the ground of an FIR being registered, without considering the appellant's consistent travel history and the risk of losing his Green Card (Paras 2, 11-12).

B) Constitutional Law - Right to Travel - Article 21 - The right to travel abroad is a fundamental right under Article 21, but can be curtailed by judicial orders as an incident to regulate conditions governing bail - The court must balance the liberty of the accused with the interests of justice (Paras 2, 11).

C) Criminal Procedure - Anticipatory Bail - Section 438 CrPC - The co-accused was granted anticipatory bail on the ground that the allegations depend on documentary evidence, rendering custodial interrogation unnecessary - The appellant's interim protection was cancelled due to withdrawal of his application (Paras 5, 11).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the High Court was justified in refusing to modify bail conditions to permit the appellant to travel to the US for revalidation of his Green Card, considering the fundamental right to travel and the necessity to ensure the accused's presence at trial.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Appeal allowed. The High Court order dated 23 July 2020 is set aside. The appellant is permitted to travel to the US for a period of eight weeks from the date of release of his passport, subject to conditions: (i) furnishing a bond of Rs. 5 lakhs with one surety; (ii) surrendering his passport to the trial court upon return; (iii) reporting to the investigating agency once a week; (iv) providing an itinerary and contact details; (v) not tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses. The trial court may impose further conditions.

Law Points

  • Fundamental right to travel abroad
  • Conditions of bail under Section 439 CrPC
  • Interface between bail conditions and right to livelihood
  • Curtailment of travel as incident to bail
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2020 LawText (SC) (10) 31

Criminal Appeal No. 648 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP(Crl) No 3420 of 2020)

2020-08-07

Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud

Parvez Noordin Lokhandawalla

State of Maharashtra & Anr.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Criminal appeal against High Court order refusing to modify bail conditions to permit travel abroad.

Remedy Sought

Permission to travel to the US for eight weeks to revalidate Green Card.

Filing Reason

Appellant sought relaxation of bail conditions to travel abroad, which was denied by the High Court.

Previous Decisions

High Court granted temporary bail on 19 May 2020 with conditions including surrender of passport and not leaving Thane without permission. High Court refused to modify conditions on 23 July 2020.

Issues

Whether the High Court was justified in refusing to modify bail conditions to permit the appellant to travel to the US for revalidation of his Green Card. Whether the right to travel abroad can be curtailed by bail conditions without considering the consequences to the accused's livelihood.

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant: He is a US resident since 1985, holds a Green Card, and has visited India sixteen times. The co-accused was granted anticipatory bail. He undertakes to return for hearings. Refusal would invalidate his Green Card, affecting his livelihood. Respondent (State): Appellant's conduct is improper; he left for the US after anticipatory bail without permission, though he returned later. He has not complied with conditions.

Ratio Decidendi

The right to travel abroad is a fundamental right under Article 21, but can be curtailed by judicial orders as an incident to regulate conditions governing bail. However, such curtailment must balance the liberty of the accused with the interests of justice. The High Court erred in refusing permission solely on the ground of an FIR being registered, without considering the appellant's consistent travel history and the risk of losing his Green Card, which would affect his livelihood.

Judgment Excerpts

The appeal raises interesting issues about the interface between the fundamental right to travel abroad and its curtailment under a judicial order as an incident to regulate conditions governing the grant of bail. The High Court declined to relax the conditions imposed by it for the grant of interim bail on the ground that an FIR has been registered against the appellant.

Procedural History

Private complaint filed in January 2014. JMFC ordered investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC on 10 April 2014. FIR registered on 22 April 2014. Sessions Court granted anticipatory bail to co-accused on 16 April 2018; appellant's interim protection cancelled. Appellant arrested on 21 February 2020. High Court granted temporary bail on 19 May 2020. Appellant filed IA for permission to travel to US; High Court refused on 23 July 2020. Supreme Court filed SLP and granted leave on 29 July 2020, and disposed of appeal on 7 August 2020.

Acts & Sections

  • Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 156(3), 439, 340
  • Indian Penal Code, 1860: 420, 467, 468, 469, 470, 471, 474, 34
  • US Immigration and Nationality Act, 1952:
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Green Card Holder to Travel Abroad During Bail, Balancing Right to Travel with Conditions of Bail. The court held that the High Court erred in refusing permission solely on the ground of an FIR being registered, without consideri...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Upholds Section 13-B of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 for NRI Landlords in Chandigarh and Punjab. Constitutional validity of provision granting immediate possession to Non-Resident Indians upheld as reasonable classificat...