While deciding on the question of granting bail, the Supreme Court has held that travelling abroad is an inseverable part of fundamental right dignity and personal liberty. “This right cannot be merely illusory,” noted the court.
In a recent judgment, an apex court bench headed by Justice D Y Chandrachud has decided on the most discussed and ambiguous question whether a court can impose a ban on travelling abroad while granting bail to an accused.
The appellant in the matter, Parvez Noordin Lokhandwalla, had sought leeway to visit the US to revalidate his green card.
During the hearing, Justice D Y Chandrachud mentioned that a competent court is entitled with the power to impose any condition while granting bail under Sections 437 (3) and 439 (1) (a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The court further stated, “However, this discretion of the court has to be “guided by the need to facilitate the administration of justice, secure the presence of the accused and ensure that the liberty of the accused is not misused to impede the investigation, overawe the witnesses or obstruct the course of justice.”
Top court bench also stated that for every matter, the court must weigh the nature of risk carefully before granting bail. The court also mentioned that the conditions set by court for the grant of bail must balance both the public interest in the enforcement of criminal justice with the rights of the accused.
“The human right to dignity and the protection of constitutional safeguards should not become illusory by the imposition of conditions which are disproportionate to the need to secure the presence of the accused, the proper course of investigation and eventually to ensure a fair trial,” said the court.
