1.  2026:HHC:2935 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr.MP No.5350 of 2025 in Cr.MP(M) No.283 of 2025 Order reserved on: 07.01.2026 Decided on : 09.01.2026 Hardeep Singh …Applicant Versus State of H.P. …..Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the applicant : Mr. Vivek Thakur, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Tejasvi Sharma, Mr. Mohinder Zharaick and Mr. H.S. Rawat, Additional Advocates General, with Ms. Ranjna Patial, Deputy Advocate General/State. Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate, vice Mr. Lokender Paul, Advocate, for the complainant. Virender Singh, Judge By way of the present application, filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’), a prayer has been made to permit applicant-Hardeep Singh to visit United Kingdom. The application under Section 482 of BNS has already been allowed, by this Court on 13.03.2025. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.  2026:HHC:2935 ) 2. As per the application, applicant is ready to abide by any condition, in case, the permission, as sought, in the application is granted to him. 3. By way of the present application, applicant is seeking indulgence of this Court to visit his family members, who were residing at United Kingdom. 4. According to the applicant, his Visa is going to expire on 23.02.2026. The applicant has been named, as accused, in a case, FIR No.275 of 2024, dated 06.09.2024, under Section 420 of IPC, registered with Police Station, Una, H.P. 5. Although, reply to the application has not been filed, but, the prayer, as made in the application has been opposed, by learned Additional Advocate General, as well as, learned counsel appearing for the complainant, on the ground that in case, the permission is granted to the applicant to visit at United Kingdom, he may not be available for the trial and according to learned counsel appearing for the complainant, there are chances that he may not return back. 6. In Maneka Gandhi versus Union of India and another, reported in (1978) 1 Supreme Court Cases 248, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that no person can be deprived of his right to go abroad, unless, there is a law enabling the 3. 2026:HHC:2935 ) State prescribing the procedure for so depriving him. Relevant portion of para-5 of the said judgment, reads as under:- “5. ……...Thus, no person can be deprived of his right to go abroad unless there is a law made by the State prescribing the procedure for so depriving him and the deprivation is effected strictly in accordance with such procedure. It was for this reason, in order to comply with the requirement of Article 21, that Parliament enacted the Passports Act, 1967 for regulating the right to go abroad. It is clear from the provisions of the Passports Act, 1967 that it lays down the circumstances under which a passport may be issued or refused or cancelled or impounded and also prescribes a procedure for doing so, but the question is whether that is sufficient enough or must the procedure comply with any particular requirements? Obviously, the procedure cannot be arbitrary, unfair or unreasonable. This indeed was conceded by the learned Attorney General who with his usual candour frankly stated that it was not possible for him to contend that any procedure howsoever arbitrary, oppressive or unjust may be prescribed by the law. …..” 7. Right to travel abroad has been held to be basic human right, by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Satish Chandra Verma versus Union of India, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 2048. Relevant para-5 of the said judgment, is reproduced, as under: “5. The right to travel abroad is an important basic human right for it nourishes independent and self- determining creative character of the individual, not only by extending his freedoms of action, but also by extending the scope of his experience. The right also extends to private life; marriage, family and friendship are humanities which can be rarely affected through refusal of freedom to go abroad and clearly show that this freedom is a genuine human right.” 4. 2026:HHC:2935 ) 8. Similar view has again been taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Parvez Noordin Lokhandwalia versus State of Maharashtra, (2020) 10 Supreme Court Cases 77. 9. In another case, titled as Satish Chandra Verma versus Union of India and others, reported as 2019(2) SCT 741, Hon’ble Apex Court has held that freedom to go abroad represent the basic human right of great significance. Relevant para-5 of the judgment is reproduced, as under:- "5. The right to travel abroad is an important basic human right for it nourishes independent and self determining creative character of the individual, not only by extending his freedoms of action, but also by extending the scope of his experience. The right also extends to private life; marriage, family and friendship are humanities which can be rarely affected through refusal of freedom to go abroad and clearly show that this freedom is a genuine human right. (See: Mrs. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and Another (1978) 1 SCC 248). In the said judgment, there is a reference to the words of Justice Douglas in Kent v. Dulles 357 US 116 which are as follows:- “Freedom to go abroad has much social value and represents the basic human right of treat significance.” 10. Similar view has also been taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Parvez Noordin Lokhandwalla versus State of Maharashtra and another. reported as 2021 AIR SC 641, Relevant para-17 of the judgment is reproduced as under:- “17. In Sumit Mehta v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2013) 15 SCC 570, in the context of conditions 5.  2026:HHC:2935 ) under Section 438(2) of the CrPC, 1973 this Court observed that a balance has to be struck between the rights of the accused and the enforcement of the criminal justice system while imposing conditions on the grant of bail:” “11. While exercising power Under Section 438 of the Code, the Court is duty bound to strike a balance between the individual’s right to personal freedom and the right of investigation of the police. For the same, while granting relief under Section 438(1), appropriate conditions can be imposed Under Section 438(2) so as to ensure an uninterrupted investigation. The object of putting such conditions should be to avoid the possibility of the person hampering the investigation. Thus, any condition, which has no reference to the fairness or propriety of the investigation or trial, cannot be countenanced as permissible under the law. So, the discretion of the Court while imposing conditions must be exercised with utmost restraint.” This Court also discussed the scope of the discretion of the court to impose “any condition” on the grant of bail and observed: “15. The words “any condition” used in the provision should not be regarded as conferring absolute power on a Court of law to impose any condition that it chooses to impose. Any condition has to be interpreted as a reasonable condition acceptable in the facts permissible in the circumstance and effective in the pragmatic sense and should not defeat the order of grant of bail.” 6.  2026:HHC:2935 ) 18. In Barun Chandra Thakur v. Ryan Augustine Pinto8, this Court restored a condition mandating that the respondent seek prior permission from a competent court for travel abroad. The condition, which was originally imposed by the High Court while granting anticipatory bail was subsequently deleted by it. This Court made the following observations with respect to imposing restrictions on the accused’s right to travel: “9. ….There could be no gainsaying to that the right to travel abroad is a valuable one and an integral part of the right to personal liberty. Equally, however, the pre-condition of securing prior permission before travelling abroad is a crucial ingredient which undoubtedly was engrafted as a condition for the grant of anticipatory-bail in this case. ……At best, the condition for seeking permission before travelling abroad could have been regulated, not deleted altogether.” 19. This Court has passed multiple orders previously allowing an accused enlarged on bail to travel abroad. In Ganpati Ramnath v. State of Bihar9, this Court allowed an accused-applicant to travel abroad for medical treatment, modifying its earlier bail order, noting that the applicant had travelled abroad on the ground of medical necessity on six occasions with the permission of the court and had returned. In K. Mohammed v. The State of Kerala10, this Court allowed the accused-appellant to travel abroad 7.  2026:HHC:2935 ) to meet in the exigencies of a family situation. In Tarun Trikha v. State of West Bengal11, this Court allowed the accused-petitioner to travel to Indonesia in connection with his employment and to return once the work was completed. In Pitam Pradhan v. State of A.P., Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).9664/2013, order dated 26 February, 2014, this Court while granting anticipatory bail, permitted the petitioner to travel abroad noting that his job required him to travel abroad at frequent intervals and may lose his employment if he were not permitted to travel abroad.” 11. In view of above, this Court is of the view that the applicant is able to make out a case in his favour. 12. So far as the apprehensions, which have been expressed, by the learned Additional Advocate General and learned counsel appearing for the complainant are concerned, for those apprehensions, reasonable conditions can be imposed, in case, the application is allowed. 13. Consequently, the application under consideration is allowed and the applicant is permitted to visit United Kingdom for 10 days and he is directed to return back on or before 23.02.2026 (expiry of his Visa), However, the said liberty is granted to the applicant, subject to the following conditions:- 8.  2026:HHC:2935 ) (i) That the applicant shall furnish bail bonds, in the sum of Rs.8,00,000/- with two sureties of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, by giving a solemn undertaking to return to the country within the time period granted by this Court. (ii) That the applicant shall not visit any other place, except, United Kingdom, as mentioned, in the application. (iii) That the applicant shall abide by the other conditions, as imposed by the learned trial Court in the present case. 14. The application is disposed of, in above terms. (Virender Singh) Judge January 09, 2026 (subhash)