Justice C Kumarappan observed that while the court has to exercise its discretion in a humane and compassionate manner, considering the past conduct, there was every possibility of delaying the trial.
The Madras High Court recently held that the past conduct of an accused, who was evading arrest and absconding at the time of investigation, can be considered for denying him permission to travel abroad.
Justice C Kumarappan observed that while the court has to exercise its discretion in a humane and compassionate manner, considering the past conduct, there was every possibility of delaying the trial.
“While considering the petitioner’s prayer, it is mandatory on the part of the Court to look into the previous conduct, as the previous conduct is an indication as to how the petitioner would react in a given situation. In the present case, the complaint was given during 2022 and according to the statement of the respondent, in spite of the request, he has not returned to India and did not cooperate with the investigation. He could be secured only after issuing the Blue Corner Notice and Look Out Circular. Therefore, his past conduct would clearly demonstrate that there is every possibility of delaying the trial,” the court said.
The court was hearing a criminal revision petition by Sathishkumar, against the order of the Judicial Magistrate, Salem refusing to grant him permission to travel to Libya to resume his duty.
As per the prosecution, the petitioner’s wife had filed a complaint against him under Section 498A of the IPC. Since there was no effective investigation, the same was transferred to the CBCID following a court order. After completing investigation, the police filed a final report which was taken on file under Section 494 and Section 498A of IPC.
The petitioner was absconding during this time and a Blue Corner Notice as well as Lookout Circular were issued against the petitioner and later, he was deported to India and arrested at Bombay airport on March 25, 2025. The petitioner was enlarged on bail and filed a plea seeking to travel to Libya to resume work.
The petitioner argued that there was no legal bar under the CrPC to permit him to continue employment in abroad. He argued that if he was not permitted to travel to Libya to pursue his avocation, it would violate his personal liberty granted under Articles 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution. He also undertook to appear before the court virtually at the time of pronouncement of Judgment.
The State on the other hand submitted that the petitioner was secured with grate difficulty and did not cooperate with the investigation inspite of request by the investigative agency. It was submitted that if the petitioner was permitted to travel abroad, it would become very difficult to secure his presence for trial, which was essential.
The court noted that the petitioner had filed a similar plea seeking the same relief previously which was rejected after considering his past conduct, especially in invading the arrest. The court noted that the present petition was filed within a short span of time, without any change in circumstances.
The court also noted that while granting bail, the Magistrate had imposed a condition on the petitioner to appear before the police twice in a month, The court noted that the prayer sought for in the present plea was one which would take away the discretion of the Magistrate.
Ultimately, the court found no perversity in the order of the Magistrate and thus, was not inclined to grant relief as sought for. The court thus dismissed the plea.
Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. N. Manoharan
Counsel for Respondent: Mr. R. Kishore Kumar Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side), Mr. T. Sundaravadanam
Case Title: D Sathishkumar v State and Another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 237
Case No: CRL RC NO. 462 OF 2026
