Seesa Santoshv.State of Telangana and Another

Legal Analysis: Seesa Santosh v. State of Telangana and Another

Citation: 2026 INSC 628

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: A Division Bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta & Justice Satish Chandra Sharma

Date of Decision: June 4, 2026

Nature of Judgment: Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 18022 of 2025 against the judgment of the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad dated 28th October 2025.

Synopsis of the Judgment

The appellant (de facto complainant’s son) challenged the High Court’s order allowing the revision petition of the respondent‑accused, which set aside the Sessions Court’s direction to deposit his passport and permitted him to travel to the USA for medical treatment. The FIR was registered in 2014 under Sections 120‑B and 306 IPC; chargesheet was filed in 2016. The accused had earlier sought quashing of the FIR (writ petition withdrawn) and failed to appear, leading to non‑bailable warrants and a Look Out Circular. After surrendering, he applied for return of his passport. The Magistrate ordered release of the passport but clarified that such release did not amount to permission to travel abroad. The Sessions Court reversed this, directing deposit of the passport. The High Court, in revision, restored the Magistrate’s order and permitted travel to the USA. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order, holding that the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 must be balanced against the right to travel abroad. The Court directed that the respondent shall not be entitled to fly out of the country without the express permission of the Sessions Court (after committal of the case). The Magistrate’s order (release of passport without permission to travel) was upheld in substance, and the High Court’s indulgence was found unjustified.

1. Basic Information of the Judgment

Case Title: Seesa Santosh v. State of Telangana and Another

Citation: 2026 INSC 628

Criminal Appeal No.: Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 18022 of 2025

Bench: Justice Dipankar Datta & Justice Satish Chandra Sharma

Date of Decision: June 4, 2026

Court: Supreme Court of India (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction)

Impugned Order: Judgment and order dated 28th October 2025 of the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad, allowing Criminal Revision Petition No. [not specified] under Section 442 BNSS, setting aside the order of the Principal Sessions Judge, Bhuvangiri dated 26th September 2025.

2. Legal Framework

Major Laws and Provisions Involved

• Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty – includes right to travel abroad and right to speedy trial).

• Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) – Section 442 (revisional powers of High Court).

• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 174 (unnatural death case), Section 482 (inherent powers – not directly invoked).

• Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 120-B (criminal conspiracy), 306 (abetment of suicide), 34 (common intention).

• Passports Act, 1967 – Provisions regarding impounding and restriction on travel.

Key Precedents Cited and Applied

• Rajesh Ranjan Yadav v. CBI (2006) 2 SCC 294 – A balance must be struck between the right to individual liberty (including right to travel abroad) and the interest of society; no right is absolute.

3. Relevant Facts

On 12th October 2014, the appellant lodged a complaint regarding the suspicious unnatural death of his father. An unnatural death case under Section 174 CrPC was registered. Investigation led to FIR No. 173 of 2014 under Sections 120‑B and 306 read with Section 34 IPC. Respondent No. 2 (the accused) was arrayed as an accused. Chargesheet was filed on 29th February 2016.

Respondent No. 2 filed Writ Petition No. 17530 of 2015 seeking quashing of the FIR and consequential proceedings. An application seeking permission to travel abroad was dismissed on 26th August 2015. The writ petition itself was subsequently withdrawn on 19th October 2016.

Thereafter, the respondent failed to appear before the trial court and did not engage any lawyer. Consequently, a non‑bailable warrant of arrest and a Look Out Circular (LOC) were issued.

After the LOC was issued, the respondent surrendered before the trial court on 29th March 2023 and was granted bail. He thereafter filed an application seeking return of his passport (which had been seized and marked as material object) to enable him to travel to the USA for medical treatment, claiming that he had suffered two brain strokes in 2023 and was undergoing treatment in the USA.

The Magistrate (Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Principal Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhongir) by order dated 7th May 2025 directed release of the passport but clarified that such release would not by itself amount to permission to leave the country, and that the respondent would be required to obtain appropriate permission from the competent court for any foreign travel.

Aggrieved, the State filed a revision petition before the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court (Principal Sessions Judge, Bhuvangiri) by order dated 26th September 2025 reversed the Magistrate’s order, directed the respondent to deposit his passport, and recommended to the passport authorities to restrict his movement under the Passports Act, 1967.

The respondent then filed a revision petition before the High Court under Section 442 BNSS. The High Court allowed the revision, set aside the Sessions Court’s order, restored the Magistrate’s order, and additionally permitted the respondent to travel to the USA after committal of the case, subject to conditions (including an undertaking to return within six months).

The appellant challenged the High Court’s order before the Supreme Court.

4. Issues

Issue No. 1: Whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the Sessions Court’s order (which had directed deposit of the passport) and in permitting the respondent to travel to the USA, given the long pendency of the criminal proceedings since 2014 and the respondent’s conduct.

Issue No. 2: Whether the right to travel abroad under Article 21 is absolute, or must be balanced against the right of the complainant/victim’s family to a speedy trial and the societal interest in effective administration of criminal justice.

Issue No. 3: Whether medical treatment available in India was sufficient to deny permission to travel abroad, and whether the High Court exceeded its revisional jurisdiction.

5. Ratio Decidendi

A. The right to travel abroad is not absolute; it must be balanced against the right to a speedy trial and societal interest (Paras 9-11).

The Court held that while Article 21 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 accused and the right of the complainant (and the larger societal interest) to a speedy trial and effective administration of criminal justice. Quoting Rajesh Ranjan Yadav v. CBI, the Court observed that no right is absolute and reasonable restrictions can be placed on them. In this case, the FIR was registered in 2014, the chargesheet was filed in 2016, and the matter still remained at the stage of committal nearly a decade later. The respondent had earlier withdrawn his quashing petition, failed to appear, and had to be secured through NBW and LOC. The respondent’s conduct did not inspire confidence.

B. The High Court was unduly indulgent; medical facilities in India are comparable (Paras 8-10).

The Court noted that the reasons given by the High Court – “exigencies of medical treatment to be undergone” by the respondent and that “he has appeared before the Magistrate Court on the last 12 occasions” – were not sufficient to justify interference with the Sessions Court’s order. The Court observed that medical facilities in India are comparable with any facility available in any foreign country. The respondent had not demonstrated that the required treatment was unavailable in India. The High Court, instead of exercising judicial restraint, was “indulgent” towards the respondent.

C. The Magistrate’s order (release of passport without permission to travel) was justified; the High Court’s order is set aside (Paras 11-14).

The Court held that the Magistrate’s order dated 7th May 2025 – directing release of the passport but clarifying that such release did not amount to permission to leave the country – was justified on facts and in the circumstances. The Sessions Court’s order directing deposit of the passport was also set aside by the Supreme Court. However, the High Court’s order was reversed, and the following regime was put in place:

• The respondent shall not be entitled to fly out of the country without the express permission of the Sessions Court (after committal of the case).

• The respondent is free to approach the Sessions Court for permission to travel abroad, should the need arise, and the Sessions Court shall consider such application on its own merits and in accordance with law, imposing appropriate conditions if inclined to grant permission.

• The civil, police, and airport administration shall coordinate to ensure that the respondent does not fly out of the country without such express permission.

D. Observations on merits not to influence trial (Para 15).

The Court clarified that the observations made in the order will not be treated as findings on the merits of the case.

6. New Legal Principles Established / Reiterated

• The right to travel abroad under Article 21 is not absolute and must be balanced against the right of the complainant/victim’s family to a speedy trial and the larger societal interest in ensuring effective administration of criminal justice.

• In criminal proceedings where the accused has a history of non‑cooperation (withdrawal of quashing petition, failure to appear, issuance of NBW and LOC), courts should be cautious in permitting foreign travel, especially when the trial has been pending for many years.

• The availability of medical treatment in India is a relevant factor; if comparable treatment is available domestically, the court may deny permission to travel abroad for medical reasons unless exceptional circumstances are shown.

• The High Court, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 442 BNSS, should not be indulgent towards an accused who has delayed the proceedings; judicial restraint must be exercised.

7. Court’s Examination and Analysis

The Court first recapitulated the factual trajectory: FIR of 2014, chargesheet of 2016, withdrawal of quashing petition, non‑appearance of the accused, issuance of NBW and LOC, eventual surrender, and the successive orders of the Magistrate, Sessions Court, and High Court.

The Court noted that the Magistrate had correctly released the passport but made it clear that such release did not permit foreign travel. The Sessions Court, considering the prolonged pendency and the respondent’s conduct, directed deposit of the passport. The High Court interfered with the Sessions Court’s order and permitted travel to the USA.

The Court examined the conduct of the respondent: he had earlier filed a writ petition seeking quashing of the FIR, which he withdrew; he failed to appear before the trial court, leading to NBW and LOC; he surrendered only after the LOC was issued. The trial had not even reached the stage of committal despite a decade having passed. The Court held that the respondent could not be permitted to travel abroad without adequate safeguards.

The Court rejected the argument that imposing conditions on foreign travel infringes Article 21, holding that the right to a speedy trial is equally an integral facet of Article 21. A balance must be struck.

The Court also observed that the medical certificate relied upon by the respondent was not verified, and in any event, adequate medical facilities are available in India. The High Court’s reliance on the “12 appearances” was misplaced because the respondent had appeared only after being compelled by the LOC.

The Court set aside the High Court’s order and directed that the respondent shall not fly out of the country without the express permission of the Sessions Court. The Magistrate’s order (release of passport without permission to travel) was upheld in substance, and the Sessions Court was directed to consider any future application for permission to travel on its own merits.

8. Critical Analysis

Strengths: The judgment correctly balances the competing rights under Article 21 – the accused’s right to travel abroad versus the complainant’s right to a speedy trial. It recognises that the right to travel is not absolute and that courts must consider the conduct of the accused and the stage of the proceedings. The Court’s disapproval of the High Court’s “indulgent” approach is a necessary reminder that revisional jurisdiction should not be exercised to favour an accused who has contributed to delay. The direction to coordinate with airport authorities ensures that the respondent cannot leave the country without court permission, even if his passport is released.

Potential concerns: The judgment does not explicitly address whether the accused’s passport was seized as a material object or deposited voluntarily. However, the factual finding is that the passport was in the custody of the court. The Court also did not examine the authenticity of the medical certificate. The direction that the respondent may apply to the Sessions Court for permission to travel leaves the matter open, but the Court has not prescribed the conditions to be imposed. However, that is best left to the Sessions Court’s discretion.

Practical impact: This judgment will be cited in all cases where an accused in a pending criminal trial seeks release of passport or permission to travel abroad. It establishes that courts must consider the history of the case, the conduct of the accused, the stage of trial, and the availability of alternative remedies (e.g., medical treatment in India). It also reinforces that High Courts should not lightly interfere with orders of lower courts refusing travel permission.

9. Final Outcome

The Criminal Appeal was disposed of in the following terms:

• The impugned order of the High Court dated 28th October 2025 was set aside.

• The order of the Sessions Court dated 26th September 2025 was also set aside.

• The Magistrate’s order dated 7th May 2025 (directing release of the passport but clarifying that such release does not amount to permission to travel abroad) was upheld in substance.

• The respondent shall not be entitled to fly out of the country without the express permission of the Sessions Court (after committal of the case).

• The respondent may approach the Sessions Court for permission to travel abroad; such application shall be considered on its own merits and in accordance with law, and appropriate conditions may be imposed.

• The civil, police, and airport administration shall coordinate to ensure that the respondent does not fly out of the country without such express permission.

• Observations made in the order shall not be treated as findings on the merits of the case.

• The appeal was disposed of accordingly.

• Pending applications stood disposed of.

10. Practical Application

For an accused seeking return of passport or permission to travel abroad during pendency of trial: You must demonstrate that you have consistently cooperated with the trial court and have not caused delay. If you have earlier absconded, withdrawn quashing petitions, or failed to appear, that conduct will be held against you. Provide credible evidence of the necessity to travel (e.g., medical certificate from a recognised hospital, proof that treatment is unavailable in India). If medical treatment is available in India, the court may refuse permission. Be prepared to offer a substantial undertaking (including a surety, bond, or deposit) and to return within a fixed period. The court will also consider the stage of trial – if trial is about to conclude, permission is less likely.

For a complainant or the State opposing foreign travel by an accused: Present the history of the case – long pendency, prior non‑cooperation, withdrawal of quashing petitions, issuance of NBW or LOC. Argue that the accused may abscond. If the accused claims medical necessity, demand proof and argue that adequate medical facilities are available in India. Cite this judgment for the proposition that the right to travel is not absolute and must be balanced against the right to a speedy trial.

For a trial court considering an application for return of passport: First, assess whether the passport is required as evidence. If not, it may be released, but with a clear condition that release does not amount to permission to travel. If the accused seeks permission to travel, hold a hearing, consider the stage of trial, the accused’s conduct, the necessity of travel, and the availability of alternatives. Impose conditions: a surety, an undertaking to return by a specified date, deposit of a sum of money, regular reporting to the local police station abroad (if possible), and surrender of the passport to the Indian embassy or consulate. If the accused fails to return, issue NBW and initiate extradition proceedings.

For a High Court in revision: Do not interfere with an order of the Sessions Court or Magistrate refusing travel permission unless there is a clear error of law or the decision is perverse. The accused’s right to travel is not absolute, and the trial court is in the best position to assess the conduct of the accused and the stage of trial. If you are inclined to interfere, impose stringent conditions and record detailed reasons.

For airport authorities and police: If the court issues a direction that the accused shall not fly out without permission, coordinate with the Bureau of Immigration. The Look Out Circular (LOC) should be reactivated or kept active until the court permits travel. If the court grants permission for a specific period, ensure that the accused is allowed to leave only within that period and that the LOC is reinstated upon his return (if required by the court).

11.  Court Lines

Line 1 (Balance of rights – Para 10, quoting Rajesh Ranjan Yadav):
“We are of the opinion that while it is true that Article 21 is of great importance because it enshrines the fundamental right to individual liberty, but at the same time a balance has to be struck between the right to individual liberty and the interest of society. No right can be absolute, and reasonable restrictions can be placed on them.”

Line 2 (Indulgence of High Court – Para 9):
“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.”

Line 3 (Right to speedy trial – Para 10):
“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.”

Line 4 (Magistrate’s order justified – Para 11):
“We are of the considered opinion that the order dated 7th May, 2025 passed by the Magistrate was justified on facts and in the circumstances and did not require interdiction.”

Line 5 (Condition for travel – Para 13):
“Respondent no.2 shall be free to approach the Sessions Court, after committal of the case, for permission to travel abroad, should the need so arise and should he satisfy the Sessions Court in that behalf. If any application is presented, the same may be considered on its own merits and in accordance with law by the Sessions Court.”

Line 6 (Coordination of authorities – Para 14):
“In any event, the civil, police and airport administration shall coordinate with each other to ensure that the respondent no.2 does not fly out of the country without the express permission of the Sessions Court referred to above.”

12. Legal Strategy Insight

For an accused seeking to travel abroad during pending trial: File an application before the trial court well in advance. Attach a sworn affidavit detailing the purpose of travel (medical treatment, business, family emergency). If medical, attach a certificate from a recognised hospital in India stating that the required treatment is not available in India, or that the patient has been advised treatment abroad. If the case is at an early stage and you have no history of default, the court may be lenient. Offer a high surety amount, an undertaking to return within a specified period, and voluntary surrender of the passport upon return. If the court refuses, approach the Sessions Court or High Court, but be aware that this judgment makes it clear that courts will not be indulgent.

For a complainant or prosecutor opposing travel permission: Immediately object by filing a counter‑affidavit. Highlight the accused’s past conduct – whether he ever absconded, failed to appear, or caused delay. If the accused claims medical necessity, ask the court to direct a medical board to examine the accused and verify the need for treatment abroad. Point out that India has world‑class medical facilities. Argue that the trial is at a critical stage and the accused may not return. Cite this judgment to argue that the right to travel is not absolute and must yield to the right to a speedy trial.

For a trial court judge: When an accused applies for permission to travel abroad, first assess the stage of trial. If the trial is about to conclude, deny permission. If the trial is at an early stage, consider the following factors: (i) whether the accused has cooperated with the trial so far; (ii) whether there is any history of absconding or non‑appearance; (iii) the purpose of travel (medical emergencies may be viewed more favourably, but only if treatment is genuinely unavailable in India); (iv) the duration of travel; (v) the amount of surety offered; (vi) the possibility of video conferencing for hearings during the travel period. If permission is granted, impose strict conditions: the accused must surrender the passport to the court upon return, must report to the local police station in the destination country (if feasible), must provide a contact address and phone number, must not extend the stay without court permission, and must deposit a substantial amount as security. Also, direct that the Look Out Circular be suspended only for the travel period and reinstated automatically after the return date.

For a Sessions Court or High Court hearing a revision against an order granting or refusing travel permission: The scope of revision is limited. Do not interfere unless the trial court’s order is perverse or suffers from a material irregularity. If the trial court has refused permission, the accused must show that the refusal is arbitrary. If the trial court has granted permission, the complainant must show that the accused is likely to abscond. In either case, record detailed reasons. After this judgment, it will be difficult for an accused to obtain travel permission if the trial is pending for a long time and the accused has contributed to the delay.

For a legal services authority (SLSA/DLSA) assisting an indigent accused: If the accused is genuine and needs to travel for medical treatment but cannot afford a surety, consider providing an undertaking from the legal services authority or arranging for a social worker to stand surety. Also, assist the accused in obtaining a medical certificate from a government hospital. However, be aware that the court’s primary concern is the risk of absconding, not the accused’s financial capacity.

For airport and immigration authorities: When a court passes an order permitting travel or releasing a passport, ensure that the order explicitly states whether the Look Out Circular (LOC) is to be suspended or withdrawn. If the order is ambiguous, seek clarification from the court. Maintain a database of court orders to avoid wrongful detention at the airport. If the court has not permitted travel, do not allow the accused to board any international flight. Coordinate with the Bureau of Immigration to update the LOC status regularly.