As a partial answer per the comments above, we need to impose the restriction that $f$ has finite order - this means that there is some $a>0$ for which $\max_{|z|=R}|f(z)| \le C(a, \epsilon)e^{R^{a+\epsilon}}$, for all $\epsilon >0, R>0$ and the infimum of such is called the order
(polynomials have order zero but there are entire functions of order zero that are not polynomials, $e^{2\pi iz}, e^z$ have order $1$, $e^{z^2}$ has order $2$ and $\cos {\sqrt z}$ - defined formally by the Taylor series $\sum{(-1)^n\frac{z^n}{(2n)!}}$ has order $\frac{1}{2}$)
Then Phragmen-Lindelof theorem (which in one version states that if a finite order holomorphic function is bounded on the edges of a strip, it satisfies the usual maximum modulus theorem, i.e. it is bounded in the whole strip by the edge bounds) and periodicity implies that $f$ must be unbounded on any vertical line
(if $f$ with period $a>0$ would be bounded on a vertical line $\Re z= b$, it would be bounded on the vertical line $\Re z = b+a$ by periodicity, hence in the full strip bounded by those two lines by P-L, hence in the plane by periodicity, hence it would be constant!)
Outside finite order, things become dicey and the example $e^{e^{2\pi iz}}$ which has modulus $1$ on $\Re z =\frac{\pi}{4}$ as $|e^{e^{2\pi iz}}|=e^{e^{-2\pi \Im z}\cos{2\pi \Re z}}$ shows that you can concoct counterexamples that are bounded on any vertical line of one's choice by translating the example above which is obviously periodic with period $1$.This is the typical counterexample that shows that Phragmen Lindelof needs finite order to hold.