HC Modifies Onerous Bail Condition, Allows Foreign Travel for Business with Intimation.

By | November 3, 2025
0 Comment

HC Modifies Onerous Bail Condition, Allows Foreign Travel for Business with Intimation.

Issue

Whether a bail condition requiring a taxpayer to seek prior permission from the trial court for every single international trip is disproportionately “onerous” and can be modified, especially when the petitioner is not a flight risk and needs to travel frequently for legitimate business purposes.

Facts

  • The petitioner was implicated in a GST evasion case involving approximately ₹8.75 crores.
  • He was granted regular bail with the conditions that he must deposit his passport with the court and not leave India without its prior permission.
  • The petitioner, a director and the operational head of a company, filed an application to modify or delete these conditions.
  • He argued that the conditions were “onerous” and caused immense hardship, preventing him from fulfilling his professional duties related to the international expansion of his business, which required frequent travel.
  • To support his plea, he provided evidence that his entire family resides in India and his wife is receiving medical treatment in India, demonstrating that he has strong community ties and is not a flight risk.

Decision

  • The High Court allowed the application and modified the bail conditions.
  • It agreed with the petitioner that the requirement to seek prior permission for every international trip was “a bit onerous” and hampered the smooth functioning of his business activities.
  • The court found that the petitioner was not a flight risk due to his strong family roots in the country.
  • The impugned order was modified as follows:
    • The trial court was directed to return the petitioner’s passport.
    • The petitioner is permitted to travel abroad for his business.
    • He must, however, disclose his complete travel schedule (itinerary, duration, etc.) to the trial court before each trip.
    • The petitioner must continue to cooperate with the trial and attend every hearing.

Key Takeaways

  • Proportionality in Bail Conditions: Bail conditions, while meant to secure an accused’s presence, should not be so “onerous” that they effectively destroy their livelihood or legitimate business pursuits.
  • Intimation vs. Permission: The court replaced a restrictive “prior permission” (which requires a judicial order for every trip) with a less burdensome “prior disclosure” (informing the court). This keeps the court informed without unduly hindering the petitioner.
  • Flight Risk is the Key Determinant: The primary purpose of restricting travel is to mitigate a “flight risk.” When an accused can demonstrate deep roots in the country (family, property, business operations), the justification for a complete travel ban or a highly restrictive one weakens significantly.
  • Balancing Act: The judgment balances the interests of the prosecution (ensuring the accused attends trial) with the fundamental rights of the accused (personal liberty and the right to practice a profession).
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Ankur Agrawal
v.
Union of India
Maneesh Sharma, J.
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Appl. No. 322 of 2025
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Appl. No.6128 of 2025
SEPTEMBER  12, 2025
Prakul Khurana for the Petitioner. Kinshuk Jain, Senior Standing Counsel for the Respondent.
JUDGMENT
1. The present miscellaneous application has been filed by the accused/petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the ‘petitioner’) under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’) seeking modification/deletion of condition No. (i) and condition No. (ii) imposed by this Court while granting bail vide Ankur Agrawal v. Union of India GST 722 (Rajasthan)/order dated 16.06.2025 passed in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 6128/2025.
2. Brief facts giving rise to the present application are that Case No. F.No.DGGI/INV/GST/2764/2023-Gr.C was registered against the petitioner for alleged offences under Sections 132(1) (a), (e), (f) and (l) read with Sections 132(1)(i) and 132(iv)(5) of the CGST Act. The allegation against the petitioner is that he has evaded GST to the tune of Rs. 8.75 crores, on the following charges:—
“i)That the petitioner was selling tyres and tyretubes without issuance of invoices or challans;
(ii)That the petitioner was selling motorcycle tyres and tubes by wrongly using invoices meant for cycles;
(iii)That the petitioner sold tyres and tubes at prices lower than their actual value.”
3. In connection with the aforesaid case, the petitioner filed a regular bail application under Section 483 of BNSS, which was allowed by this Court vide order dated 16.06.2025, subject to the following conditions:
“(i)he shall not leave the country without prior permission of the court.
(ii)he shall deposit the passport before the concerned authority.
(iii)he shall co-operate in the trial and shall attend each and every date of hearing in the trial, until and unless his presence is exempted by the trial court.
(iv)in case, the above conditions are not complied by the petitioner, thus the respondent prosecution shall be free to move for cancellation bail application.”
4. The inherent powers of this Court are hereby invoked under section 528, BNSS, seeking modification of the order dated 16.06.2025 passed in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 6128/2025, to the extent that the said order granting regular bail under Section 483 of BNSS in favour of the petitioner is a bit onerous and causing immense hardship to him to fulfill his business/professional pursuits.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, a businessman by vocation, is a Director in M/s Kalivahan Rubber Private Limited, a partner in M/s Kalivahan, and the Proprietor of M/s Kalivahan Rubber Udyog; the aforesaid entities are engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling various types of tyres and tubes. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that, being the operational head of these entities, the petitioner is actively involved in the international expansion of business operations, and owing to such nature of work, the petitioner requires to travel abroad frequently, and has done so in the past, in the ordinary course of business, the same was supported with copies placed on record, marked as Annexure-A/2 (Colly). He also submits that looking to the facts stated above, the restrictions imposed vide conditions No. (i) and No. (ii) of the order dated 16.06.2025 are a bit onerous and causing serious prejudice to the petitioner as they restrain him from undertaking his international business commitments freely.
6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further contended that since: (i) the entire family of the petitioner, including his parents and spouse, are permanent residents of India, and the wife of the petitioner is also undergoing medical treatment in India, therefore, the petitioner is not at flight risk; (ii) the petitioner undertakes to file a written intimation before the learned Trial Court as well as before the concerned authority, disclosing the proposed dates of travel, place of stay, expected duration of visit, and contact details including mobile number and e-mail address; (iii) the petitioner further undertakes to ensure his presence before the learned Trial Court as and when required and also undertakes not to misuse the liberty so granted; (iv) the petitioner’s passport is due for renewal and is about to expire on 27.12.2025; and (v) the petitioner is also willing to furnish an enhanced security amount, if so directed by this Court, as a condition for modifying the conditions of bail, thus, the petitioner may kindly be granted modification of the bail conditions as prayed for.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment passed in the matter of Jagdish Arora v. Union of India [MCRC No. 4923 of 2022, dated 31-3-2022], another judgment passed in the matter of Aman Kumar Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh [CRMP No. 1835 of 2023, dated 20-9-2023], and in the matter of Kirti Vishwanath Kedia v. CBI (EOB) [Interim Application No. 3323 of 2024/Anticipatory Bail Application No. 960 of 2022, dated 22-8-2025].
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the prosecuting agency has opposed the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and contended that no review, alteration or modification of the order granting regular bail under Section 483 of BNSS is permissible by invoking inherent powers under Section 528 of BNSS. It is further argued that this Court has become functus officio and, in view of the bar contained under Section 403 of BNSS, no modification of the bail conditions can be carried out.
9. In order to buttress his contention, learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance upon the judgments passed in Barun Chandra Thakur v. Ryan Augustine Pinto [Criminal Appeal No. 1618 of 2019, dated 21-10-2019]; in Disha A. Ravi v. State (NCT of Delhi) [Crl.M.A. No. 22214 of 2023, dated 26-9-2023], and in Aparna Purohit v. State of U.P [Application u/s 482 No. 6022 of 2022, dated2-11-1012].
10. During the course of arguments, it was further informed by the counsel for the parties that charges have not been framed in the matter as yet and the Bail Order dated 16.06.2025 has not been assailed by the Prosecution.
11. Heard and considered the submissions made at bar and perused the material available on record, as well as the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the respective parties.
12. Firstly, this Court shall deal with the arguments advanced by the counsel for the respondent with regards to the maintainability of this petition and whether this Court has become functus officio in view of the bar contained under Section 403 of the BNSS.
13. While dealing with similar issue, the High Court of Chhattisgarh in Aman Kumar (supra), while distinguishing the judgment passed in the Aparna Purohit (supra) relied upon by the respondent, not only overruled the similar objections but also allowed the petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 1, while modifying the bail conditions, the Court held as under:
“27. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Amarnath (supra) and Usman Bhai (supra) has categorically held that granting or refusing of bail applications, summoning witnesses, adjourning cases, passing orders for bail, calling for reports etc. are interlocutory orders. Though some of the High Courts have held that the grant or refusal of a bail application is the final order, in those cases the abovestated judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court were not taken into consideration.
28. Further “conditions” alone are neither judgments nor orders disposing of the case in the eyes of law. The final order in bail application is its refusal or grant. Conditions are imposed to bind an accused so he or she may cooperate in the smooth disposal of criminal case/s pending against him/ her. Section 362 of Cr.P.C. prohibits review or alteration of final judgment or order but the conditions are neither judgment nor final order disposing of a case therefore in the opinion of this Court conditions of bail order can be modified. For example, if an accused is not capable of furnishing bail and bonds as directed by the Court then the same Court modifies the order. Another example is if an application for a grant of regular bail is rejected on merits and the accused moves repeat application on the ground of delay in trial, the same Court grants bail. Thus the practice of modification of bail orders is not alien to criminal jurisprudence and the same has been prevalent for a long.
35. In the matter of Aparna Purohit (supra), various judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court have been taken into consideration while holding that the alteration/review of the order is not permissible, it is also held that the order granting bail is a final order; therefore, the provisions of Section 362 of the Cr.P.C. would apply. However, in the matter of Aparna Purohit (supra), the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Amarnath (supra) and Usman Bhai Dawoodbhai Menon (supra) have not been taken into consideration, wherein it is categorically held that the grant or refusal of a bail application, order summoning the witnesses, adjournment of the cases are interlocutory orders. When the order granting or refusing bail is an interlocutory order, the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for modification of conditions of bail order would be permissible, and the provisions of Section 362 of the Cr.P.C. would not attract.
…….
42. Therefore, this Court by invoking its powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., is inclined to modify conditions No. 1, 5, 6 and 7 as under:-
………………”
(Emphasis Supplied)
Thus, I see no reason to take a contrary view, particularly when the facts in Aman Kumar (supra) are materially indistinguishable from those in the present Misc. Application before me.
14. It is also pertinent to mention here that once bail is granted subject to certain conditions by the High Court under Section 483 of the BNSS, as in the present case, the power to alter or delete the conditions subject to which bail is granted is also inherently vested with this Court. Though the power of amending or deleting such conditions is not expressly provided under the BNSS, the remedy available for seeking such modification/deletion lies in invoking the inherent powers under Section 528 of the BNSS so as to secure the ends of justice.
15. The object behind vesting inherent powers in this Court is to ensure complete justice and to prevent any miscarriage of justice. Such inherent powers are saved with this Court to be exercised in circumstances where it is necessary either to secure complete justice or to prevent failure of justice, even though there may be no express statutory provision under the BNSS in that regard. The constitutional safeguards of personal liberty further reinforce the exercise of such inherent jurisdiction when justice so demands.
16. Therefore, argument of the learned Counsel for the respondent that the present petition is not maintainable, or that this Court has become functus officio, lacks merit.
17. It is trite law that every bail application touches upon the realm of the fundamental right to personal liberty, and the procedure of granting bail and of subjecting such bail to conditions is governed by the statutory provisions of the BNSS as well as judicial pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
18. It is not disputed that traveling abroad is one of the conditions requiring the petitioner to seek prior permission; nevertheless, the requirement for the petitioner to obtain prior permission from the learned Trial Court before every international trip, as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is a bit onerous and hampers the smooth functioning of business and professional activities of the petitioner, considering the urgent and unpredictable nature of his travel needs. However, in view of the petitioner’s business requirements, the right to personal liberty safeguarded by Article 21 of the Constitution remains sacrosanct but is subject to relevant statutory regulations concerning travel. This fundamental right under Article 21 can admittedly be curtailed only through procedure established by law.
19. A similar view has been expressed in a judgment passed by a Co-ordinate Bench this Court in Ashutosh Bajoria v. Rajesh Kumar Sharma 2023 (1) Crimes 419 (Raj.), wherein while referring to judgments by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Smt. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India AIR 1978 SC 597 and Satish Chandra Verma v. Union of India [Civil Appeal No. 3802 of 2019, dated 9-4-2019], the Court has held as under:
“16. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Smt. Maneka Gandhi (supra) has held that the expression “personal liberty” under Article 21 of the Constitution of India has a wider amplitude, which includes right to go abroad. A person cannot be deprived to this right except in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the law.
17. Similarly in the case of Satish Chandra Verma (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that :-

“The right to travel abroad is an important basic human right for it nourishes independent and selfdetermining creative character of the individual, not only by extending his freedoms of action, but also by extending the scope of his experience. The right also extends to private life; marriage; family and friendship are humanities which can be rarely affected through refusal of freedom to go abroad and clearly show that this freedom is a genuine human right (see: Mrs. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and Another (1978) 1 SCC 248. In the said judgment, there is a reference to the words of Justice Douglas in Kent v. Dulles 357 US 116 which are as follows:

“Freedom to go abroad has much social value and represents the basic human right of great significance.” ”

18. This court is required to draw a balance between the right of the petitioner to travel abroad and also the right of the prosecution to duly prosecute the petitioner so as to prevent him from evading the trial. From perusal of the various judgments passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court it is clear that the paramount consideration is given to the condition imposed upon the persons who have been granted permission to go abroad, so as to ensure that they do not flee from justice. For ensuring the presence of the accused before the Trial Court, any appropriate condition can be imposed and in case the condition imposed by law is violated, appropriate coercive action can be taken. The judgment cited by the counsel for the respondent in the case of Barun Chandra Thakur (supra), is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
20. A similar view was taken by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Parvez Noordin Lokhandwalla v. State of Maharashtra 2020 INSC 573
17. In Sumit Mehta v. State (NCT of Delhi) MANU/SC/ 0935/2013 : (2013) 15 SCC 570, in the context of conditions Under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, this Court observed that a balance has to be struck between the rights of the Accused and the enforcement of the criminal justice system while imposing conditions on the grant of bail:

11. While exercising power Under Section 438 of the Code, the Court is duty bound to strike a balance between the individual’s right to personal freedom and the right of investigation of the police. For the same, while granting relief Under Section 438(1), appropriate conditions can be imposed Under Section 438(2) so as to ensure an uninterrupted investigation. The object of putting such conditions should be to avoid the possibility of the person hampering the investigation. Thus, any condition, which has no reference to the fairness or propriety of the investigation or trial, cannot be countenanced as permissible under the law. So, the discretion of the Court while imposing conditions must be exercised with utmost restraint.

This Court also discussed the scope of the discretion of the court to impose “any condition” on the grant of bail and observed:

15. The words “any condition” used in the provision should not be regarded as conferring absolute power on a Court of law to impose any condition that it chooses to impose. Any condition has to be interpreted as a reasonable condition acceptable in the facts permissible in the circumstance and effective in the pragmatic sense and should not defeat the order of grant of bail.

18. In Barun Chandra Thakur v. Ryan Augustine Pinto, this Court restored a condition mandating that the Respondent seek prior permission from a competent court for travel abroad. The condition, which was originally imposed by the High Court while granting anticipatory bail was subsequently deleted by it. This Court made the following observations with respect to imposing restrictions on the Accused’s right to travel:

9. There could be no gainsaying to that the right to travel abroad is a valuable one and an integral part of the right to personal liberty. Equally, however, the pre-condition of securing prior permission before travelling abroad is a crucial ingredient which undoubtedly was engrafted as a condition for the grant of anticipatory-bail in this case..At best, the condition for seeking permission before travelling abroad could have been regulated, not deleted altogether.

19. This Court has passed multiple orders previously allowing an Accused enlarged on bail to travel abroad. In Ganpati Ramnath v. State of Bihar, this Court allowed an Accused-applicant to travel abroad for medical treatment, modifying its earlier bail order, noting that the applicant had travelled abroad on the ground of medical necessity on six occasions with the permission of the court and had returned. In K. Mohammed v. The State of Kerala, this Court allowed the Accused-Appellant to travel abroad to meet in the exigencies of a family situation. In Tarun Trikha v. State of West Bengal, this Court allowed the AccusedPetitioner to travel to Indonesia in connection with his employment and to return once the work was completed. In Pitam Pradhan v. State of A.P., this Court while granting anticipatory bail, permitted the Petitioner to travel abroad noting that his job required him to travel abroad at frequent intervals and may lose his employment if he were not permitted to travel abroad.
21. As regard to the judgments relied upon by the counsel for the respondent, though there is no quarrel on the legal position propounded by the judgments relied upon by the respondent, but in the respectful opinion of this Court, the same are distinguishable on facts as in Barun Chandra Thakur (supra): (a) accused was charged under the POCSO Act2, a crime much more grave and heinous than the one in the present matter; (b) the offence is triable by a special court under a special legislation whereas in the present case the offences are triable by magistrate; (c) the petitioner therein was not a business head required to travel to meet his business/professional pursuits; (d) the said judgment relates to allowing of a second bail modification application without any significant changes after dismissal of the first bail modification application; (e) even otherwise the present case does not pertain to altogether deletion of condition no. (i) imposed by this Court rather an endeavor to regulate the same, in order to strike a balance between the right of the petitioner to travel abroad and also the right of the prosecution to duly prosecute the petitioner so as to prevent him from evading the trial as well as while considering Article 21 of the Constitution of India in the light of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in Maneka Gandhi (supra), Satish Chandra Verma (supra) and Parvez Noordin Lokhandwalla (supra).
22. Further, in Disha A. Rani (supra) the accused was allegedly involved in a conspiracy to wage war against the country; and in Aparna Purohit (supra) accused was booked under section 153-A, 295, 505 (1)(b), 505 (2) and 469 of the Code3, and under section 66, 66-F and 67-I of the IT Act, 20004; it is pertinent to note here that in both these cases the investigations were pending, and charge-sheets had not been filed when the bail modification had been taken up in the Court; whereas in the present case the investigation has been completed, charge-sheet has been filed in the matter. Therefore, even these cases are distinguishable on facts.
23. Therefore, looking to the fact that: (i) the petitioner is a Director in the company M/s Kalivahan Rubber Private Limited, a partner in M/s Kalivahan Tyres LLP, and the proprietor of M/s Kalivahan Rubber Udyog, and that, being the operational head, the petitioner is involved in the international expansion of the business of the said entities. Looking to the nature of his work, the petitioner has to frequently travel abroad for business-related work as the machinery, parts thereof and raw materials required by the petitioner’s company are not available domestically at competitive prices or as per technical standards; (ii) the entire family of the petitioner, including his parents and spouse, are permanent residents of India, and the wife of the petitioner is also undergoing medical treatment in India, therefore, the petitioner is not at flight risk; (iii) the petitioner undertakes to regularly apprise the learned Trial Court of his movements and particulars of travel abroad; (iv) the petitioner is willing to furnish an enhanced security amount; (v) the petitioner’s passport is due for renewal and is about to expire on 27.12.2025; (vi) the Supreme Court has emphasized time and again of the sanctity of Article 21; and (vii) the alleged evasion of tax amounts to a total of Rs.8.75 Crores only, this Court is of the considered opinion that the peculiar facts surrounding the case of the petitioner and the submissions put forth for the petitioner have some substance.
24. Therefore, taking an overall view of the case in the peculiar facts and circumstances, this Court deems it proper to invoke its inherent power under section 528 of BNSS to substitute/modify bail conditions imposed in para 9 of the order dated 16.06.2025 in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 6128/2025 as under:
(i) he shall not leave the country without prior permission of the court.
Modified Condition No. (i):
The petitioner shall file a written undertaking before the learned Trial Court prior to every foreign trip, disclosing the date of departure and return, along with complete details of his travel abroad including the Airport from where, he would be boarding/de-boarding, copies of tickets and visa, address of stay abroad, mobile phone number to be used during the visit, and his e-mail ID. This is to ensure that the whereabouts of the petitioner are duly known to the concerned authority. The petitioner shall also state on affidavit that he would not undertake a foreign visit after the case is fixed for final argument till the judgment is pronounced, so the hearing of the case may not be delayed. But if the final argument is unnecessarily delayed by the Prosecution, the petitioner will be at liberty to move an appropriate application for necessary orders before this Court.
(ii) he shall deposit the passport before the concerned authority. Condition No. (ii) is hereby relaxed in view of the modification of Condition No. (i).
Accordingly, the Trial Court is directed to return the original passport to the petitioner after retaining a photocopy thereof for its record.
(iii) he shall co-operate in the trial and shall attend each and every date of hearing in the trial, until and unless his presence is exempted by the trial court.
(iv) in case, the above conditions are not complied by the petitioner, thus the respondent prosecution shall be free to move for cancellation bail application.
New Condition No. (v):
(v) Furthermore, the petitioner shall furnish additional security within thirty (30) days from today, in the form of a Fixed Deposit of Rs.5,00,000/- (Five lakhs only) in the Trial Court, which shall remain subject to forfeiture in case of default or violation of any of the conditions imposed in this matter.
25. The present application under Section 528 of the BNSS is hereby disposed of, with the aforesaid modifications.
26. Let a copy of this order be sent to the learned Trial Court for information and compliance.
Category: GST

About CA Satbir Singh

Chartered Accountant having 12+ years of Experience in Taxation , Finance and GST related matters and can be reached at Email : Taxheal@gmail.com