Bombay High Court: The instant writ petition was filed to seek stay on the order granting permission to Respondent 1, accused of evading custom duty of Rs. 30 crores, to travel abroad for attending International Furniture Fair. A Single Judge Bench of S.M. Modak, J., held that the accused could not be denied of his fundamental right to travel abroad, merely because he was facing prosecution and the investigation for the same was pending. To address the petitioner’s concerns regarding evidence tampering, the Court imposed an additional condition requiring the accused to give an undertaking that he would not establish any contact with the exporters who were related to the instant case. Thus, the Court dismissed the writ petition and permitted the accused to travel abroad.
Background
Respondent 1 was accused in a case registered with Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (‘DRI’), Mumbai for offences punishable under Section 135(1)(a) and 135(1)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. The allegations involved misdeclaration of the goods and undervaluation of imported furniture and other accessories with estimated custom duty evasion of Rs.30 crores.
The accused was granted conditional bail by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (‘Trial Court’) on 2-8-2025, wherein one of the conditions was to surrender the passport for a period of six months from the date of arrest and to obtain permission in order to travel abroad.
The accused had to attend an International Furniture Fair at Paris from 4-9-2025 to 8-9-2025 therefore, he applied to the Trial Court to seek the permission to travel abroad. Despite the objections from DRI, the Trial Court granted the permission and returned the passport to the accused.
Aggrieved by the said order of the Trial Court, the petitioner filed a writ petition before the present Court.
Analysis, Law and Decision
The Court noted that the primary objection for the grant of permission for foreign travel of the accused was the pendency of the application for cancellation of bail before the Trial Court. The petitioner also contended that the accused might tamper with the evidence if he was permitted to travel outside the country.
The Court observed that the investigation by DRI was ongoing and stated that, to grant the request of foreign travel, the Court needed to consider the availability of the accused during the investigation and the possibility of evidence tampering by the accused. Thus, the Court emphasised that there was a need to balance the rights of investigating agency with the accused’s fundamental right to travel.
Furthermore, the Court stated that the application of cancellation of bail was scheduled for hearing on 11-9-2025 but it was unknown as to when the said hearing might conclude, while the Furniture Fair was scheduled to end on 8-9-2025, i.e., before the conclusion of hearing of the said application. The Court also noted that the accused had already deposited the surety of Rs. 2 Lakhs for grant of bail, as directed by the Magistrate.
The Court reiterated that right to travel abroad had been recognized as a fundamental right. Therefore, merely because a person was facing prosecution, it did not mean that he could not travel abroad until the completion of the investigation, or the criminal case was pending.
The Court held that the conduct of the International Furniture Fair could not be changed as it depended upon the organisers and not on the accused. Further, mere pending prosecution could not be a ground to deny the accused fundamental right to travel abroad especially when it was not known when the hearing would conclude. Therefore, the Court dismissed the petition while putting an additional condition on the accused of giving an undertaking that he would not establish any contact with the exporters who were involved in the instant case and granted him the permission to travel abroad from 4-9-2025 to 10-9-2025. Thus, the Court made this additional safeguard and denied to grant stay on the order of the Trial Court, upholding the accused’s fundamental right to travel.
[Sruti Vijaykumar v. Falgun Yogendra Shroff, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 3156, decided on: 3-9-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Advocate for the Petitioners- Shyamrishi R. Pathak, Sr. Standing Counsel i/b. Ganesh Singh, Jyoti Borai, Advocate; Sruti Vijayakumar D.D.; I.O. Shri Umesh Gupta
Advocate for the Respondents- A.S. Gawai, APP; Sujay Kantawala, Bhushan Shah, Akash Jain, Aishwarya Kantawala, Mohd. Lokandwala, Jeffry Caleb, Ayushi Jha, Gaurav Ekekar, i/b, Mansukhlal Hiralal & Co.