The Delhi High Court has recently passed a pragmatic and legally sound judgment in allowing a petitioner—convicted by a Trial Court under the Prevention of Corruption Act and IPC provisions—to travel abroad to meet his daughter. While the prosecution insisted that the petitioner’s conviction under serious offences warranted a travel restriction, the Hon’ble Court took a more constitutionally grounded and rights-conscious approach.
Understanding the Legal Nuance
The Court noted a crucial distinction: the petitioner’s appeal against conviction had already been admitted, and more importantly, his sentence had been suspended. This is not just a procedural technicality—it goes to the heart of our criminal justice system and constitutional principles. Once a sentence is suspended, the individual cannot be deemed a “convict” for all practical purposes, especially when the appeal is pending and the conviction is under judicial scrutiny.
To curtail someone’s right to travel abroad—especially to meet immediate family—on the sole ground of a non-final conviction would set a dangerous precedent. It would mean punishing an individual beyond what the law prescribes, while ignoring the presumption of innocence during the appellate stage.
Liberty Cannot Be Sacrificed on Hypotheticals
There was no concrete apprehension presented by the prosecution that the petitioner was a flight risk or that he intended to evade justice. Mere allegations of past misconduct—already tried in court and currently under appeal—cannot override the fundamental right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Moreover, courts across India have consistently held that unless there are compelling reasons such as tampering with evidence, absconding, or threat to society, bail conditions should not become a tool to impose disproportionate restrictions.
A Humanitarian Perspective
The petitioner sought to travel abroad to meet his daughter—an act rooted in basic human emotion and not malice. The judiciary’s role is not just to punish, but to ensure procedural fairness and to protect the dignity of the individual, even when convicted.
In this light, the High Court’s decision reaffirms the principle that justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be just, balanced, and empathetic.
Conclusion
The judgment is not about leniency toward white-collar crimes. It is about recognizing that until all remedies are exhausted, no conviction can be treated as final. By allowing the petitioner to travel abroad in the face of a suspended sentence, the Hon’ble Court has rightly upheld the values of due process, proportionality, and individual liberty. This is a commendable reaffirmation of the fact that our legal system is not merely punitive—it is just.