Supreme Court Restrains Accused From Travelling Abroad for Medical Treatment: Right to Travel Under Bail

In Seesa Santosh v. The State of Telangana (2026 INSC 628), decided on June 4, 2026, the Supreme Court set aside a Telangana High Court order that had permitted an accused person to travel to the United States for medical treatment. The bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma held that the right to travel abroad under Article 21 is not absolute and must be balanced against the complainant's right to a speedy trial and the broader societal interest in effective administration of criminal justice.

Facts of the Case

The case arose from criminal proceedings involving an FIR and chargesheet filed in 2016 for offences under Sections 120-B (criminal conspiracy) and 306 (abetment of suicide) read with Section 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code 1860. The respondent accused, a US citizen, sought permission to travel to the United States for medical treatment after suffering brain strokes. The Telangana High Court had granted permission, allowing the accused to travel abroad for treatment.

The Supreme Court's Reasoning

The Supreme Court observed that the High Court had been "indulgent" rather than judicially restrained in granting permission to travel abroad. The Court noted that medical facilities in India are comparable to those available in any foreign country and that the accused had not demonstrated that the required treatment was unavailable in India. The judgment emphasised that when an accused person is facing serious criminal charges, courts must carefully balance the individual's personal liberty against the interests of the criminal justice system.

The Court laid down the principle that the right to travel abroad, while a facet of Article 21 of the Constitution, is subject to reasonable restrictions. In the context of criminal proceedings, these restrictions include the risk of the accused absconding, the delay caused to the trial, and the impact on the complainant's right to see the case concluded within a reasonable time. For a detailed understanding of how bail conditions are determined, see our guide on how to apply for regular bail in India under BNSS 2023.

Balancing Liberty and Criminal Justice

The judgment draws a clear distinction between the right to travel abroad as a general fundamental right and its application to persons facing criminal prosecution. The Court observed that a person accused of a serious offence, particularly one involving abetment of suicide, cannot claim an unrestricted right to leave the country merely on the ground of medical necessity when equivalent treatment is available domestically.

This reasoning builds on established precedent. The Supreme Court has consistently held that bail conditions, including passport surrender and travel restrictions, are legitimate tools for ensuring the presence of the accused during trial. The Court has also recently addressed the broader question of bail conditions and judicial dignity, drawing a line between reasonable restrictions and those that are degrading or unconstitutional.

When Can an Accused Travel Abroad?

The judgment does not impose a blanket ban on accused persons travelling abroad. Instead, it establishes a framework for evaluating such requests. Courts should consider the nature and severity of the charges, the stage of the trial, whether equivalent medical treatment is available in India, the risk of the accused not returning, and the impact on the complainant and the trial timeline. If the accused can demonstrate that the required treatment is genuinely unavailable in India and that adequate safeguards (such as security deposits, sureties, and tracking mechanisms) are in place, courts may still grant permission.

An accused person who is considering seeking permission to travel abroad should also understand the grounds and process for anticipatory bail, as travel restrictions are often linked to bail conditions.

Key Takeaways

The Supreme Court's ruling in Seesa Santosh clarifies that the right to travel abroad is not absolute for persons facing criminal prosecution. Courts must apply a balancing test that weighs individual liberty against the interests of criminal justice. Medical treatment requests must be supported by evidence that the treatment is unavailable in India. The judgment also signals that High Courts should exercise greater restraint when granting permission to travel abroad, particularly in cases involving serious charges. For accused persons, the practical implication is that travel abroad requests will be scrutinised more carefully, and the availability of domestic medical facilities will be a key factor in the court's decision.