Why Madras High Court blocked engineer’s return to Libya, accused in dowry harassment, bigamy case

Justice C Kumarappan was hearing a criminal revision petition filed by the man, who had challenged an order of a trial court, refusing to allow him to resume his employment in Libya pending trial in a dowry harassment case registered against him.

“No doubt any denial of the petitioner to travel abroad would infringe upon the fundamental right. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the right to travel abroad, though a valuable and integral part of the right to personal liberty, a balance has to be struck between the right of an individual and the enforcement of a criminal justice system,” the court said on June 1, rejecting the plea.

Justice C Kumarappan said that permitting the petitioner to remain continuously in Libya could make it difficult to ensure his participation in the criminal proceedings in dowry case. (Image enhanced using AI)

Past conduct cannot be ignored, says court

The high court emphasised that an accused person’s past conduct is an important consideration when courts exercise discretion in such matters.

Referring to the facts of the case, the court noted that the original complaint had been filed in 2022 and that the petitioner had allegedly failed to return to India or cooperate with the investigation despite requests from the investigating agency.

The court observed that authorities were able to secure his presence only after issuing a Blue Corner Notice and a Look-Out Circular.

“His past conduct would clearly demonstrate that there is every possibility of delaying the trial,” the court said.

Story continues below this ad

Justice Kumarappan added that permitting the petitioner to remain continuously in Libya could make it difficult to ensure his participation in the criminal proceedings.

How case reached high court

The criminal proceedings in the dowry harassment case stem from a complaint lodged by the man’s estranged wife, alleging cruelty and dowry harassment.

An FIR was initially registered in 2022 under Section 498A (cruelty) of the Indian Penal Code.

Dissatisfied with the progress of the investigation, the wife approached the high court seeking a transfer of the probe, which subsequently transferred the investigation to the Crime Branch-CID (CBCID) on August 12, 2024.

After the transfer, the dowry harassment case was re-registered in 2025. Upon completion of the investigation, the CBCID filed a final report on July 29, 2025, for offences under Sections 494 (bigamy) and 498A (cruelty) of the IPC.

Story continues below this ad

Brought back to India after international alerts

The prosecution told the court that the man had remained outside the country and had not cooperated with investigators despite repeated requests in the dowry harassment.

As a result, a Blue Corner Notice and a Look-Out Circular were issued against him. Authorities eventually secured his return to India, and he was arrested at Mumbai Airport on March 25, 2025.

After being remanded to judicial custody, he was later released on bail. However, conditions imposed by the court required him to report to the police twice every month in the dowry harassment.

It was during this period that the man sought permission from the trial court to travel back to Libya, where he claimed to have been employed as an engineer since 2019.

Story continues below this ad

Petitioner cites livelihood, constitutional rights

Petitioner’s counsel argued that there was no legal prohibition preventing an accused person from working abroad while facing trial.

The petitioner contended that denial of permission would jeopardise his employment and infringe his fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution.

He also offered an undertaking that he would participate in proceedings of the dowry harassment through virtual mode and appear physically whenever required.

The plea stated that unless he resumed work in Libya, he faced the risk of losing his job.

Story continues below this ad

Wife opposes move, alleges second marriage

The wife, who was impleaded in the proceedings, strongly opposed the request.

According to her submissions before the court, she and her estranged husband had studied together in a polytechnic institution, fallen in love and later married. The couple has a son.

She told the court that she had chosen not to relocate to Libya after her husband obtained employment there, keeping in mind the welfare of their child.

However, she alleged that her estranged husband later developed a relationship with another woman from Kolkata and subsequently married her.

Story continues below this ad

She also reiterated allegations of dowry harassment, which form part of the criminal case pending against him.

Earlier plea had already been rejected

The high court noted that the man had earlier sought identical relief before the trial court in the dowry harassment.

That application had already been dismissed on January 19, after the magistrate considered his conduct during the investigation.

Justice Kumarappan noted that the earlier order had never been challenged and had therefore attained finality. Despite that, the petitioner filed another application seeking substantially the same relief without demonstrating any change in circumstances.

Story continues below this ad

The court found the fresh application to be little more than a repetition of the earlier plea.

Bail conditions still in force

The court also noted that a previous order had relaxed certain bail conditions but continued to require the man to appear before the respondent police on the 1st and 16th of every month.

According to the high court, those conditions remained operative.

The judge further found that the application filed by the petitioner was broadly drafted and did not separately seek specific reliefs such as the return of the passport, exemption from personal appearance, or permission to attend proceedings virtually.

No reason to interfere with trial court order

While acknowledging that courts must exercise discretion humanely and compassionately, the Madras High Court held that the circumstances of the case justified the refusal of permission.

Story continues below this ad

The court observed that revisional jurisdiction is limited and that interference is warranted only when an order is manifestly perverse or unsupported by material on record.

Finding no such infirmity in the magistrate’s decision, Justice Kumarappan concluded that there was no ground to interfere.

The criminal revision petition was accordingly dismissed, leaving the man bound by the existing bail conditions and requiring him to remain in India while facing trial in the dowry harassment and bigamy case.