The Rajasthan High Court has permitted a couple facing criminal proceedings to travel to the United States for four months to be with their son, who is scheduled to undergo surgery, observing that a child need not be hospitalised for parents to attend to him during a medical emergency.

The bench hedaed by Justice Farjand Ali said the emotional bond between parents and their child deserves due consideration, particularly when the child is suffering from a medical condition and is scheduled to undergo a surgical procedure.

The Court was hearing a plea filed by the couple, who are accused in a criminal case and had already been granted protection from arrest. They sought permission to travel to the US to remain with their son during his scheduled surgery.

The trial court had rejected their request, citing the pending investigation and the possibility that the accused might flee the country. Before the High Court, the respondents also argued that the medical advice relied upon by the couple was given on an outpatient basis and did not require the son to remain hospitalised.

Rejecting this contention, Justice Farjand Ali held that a parent's concern for an ailing child cannot be determined solely by the nature of the medical advice or whether the child has been admitted to a hospital.

The Court noted that, in the Indian social and cultural setting, parents naturally wish to remain beside their children when they are unwell. It observed that the couple's desire to be with their son during his surgery was a natural human response and could not be disregarded merely because the medical advice was provided on an outpatient basis.

The High Court also considered the pending investigation. It clarified that the protection granted to the petitioners from arrest did not exempt them from the investigation, which could continue even in their absence.

However, the Court found no material to show that the petitioners' physical presence was specifically required for the investigation or that their temporary travel would obstruct or prejudice the proceedings.

 Therefore, the Court held that the mere pendency of an investigation could not, by itself, operate as an absolute bar against temporary foreign travel, particularly when there was no material indicating that the accused's absence would hamper the investigation.

Allowing the petition, the High Court permitted the couple to travel to the United States for four months. It also directed the Ministry of External Affairs, immigration authorities and police authorities not to obstruct or impede their travel.

Case Title: Mahesh Kumar Gupta & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan.