9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (5) TMI 175 - HC - CustomsSeeking modification/deletion in bail condition requiring the Applicant to deposit/surrender her passport with the Trial Court and seek permission before traveling abroad - HELD THAT - It is seen from the affidavit that prosecution is in the process of issuing Show-Cause-Notice to Applicant for which her presence is required in India and therefore her Application is opposed by prosecution. Applicant can always co-operate with the investigation after she returns back in July 2025 as stated by her. In the bail order it is noted by the Court that when she was in custody since 21.02.2025 she was not at all interrogated. Applicant can always co-operate with the investigation after she returns back in July 2025 as stated by her. What is argued across the Bar is that Applicant is required to submit her bank statements and LIC policies in her name to the prosecution. Though the prosecution has objection to the present Application it is opined that the case of Applicant in respect of prayer clauses (a) (c) seeking modification / deletion of condition No. 6 is covered by the decisions of this Court in the cases of Mohammad Hanif Nurani 2025 (2) TMI 220 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT and Manish Gulabchand Birawant 2025 (3) TMI 420 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT . Needless to state that Applicant will have to furnish all such necessary details to the prosecution before she embarks upon her travel to USA at this time and at all times in future. Insofar as Applicant s medical condition is concerned prima facie adequate documentation has been appended to the Application and all such necessary details have already been given to the prosecution by her. If any further details are required to be informed it is directed that Applicant shall inform the same and all such necessary details pertaining to her itinerary date of travel date of return details of the place where and with whom she will be residing during her visit details of the places which she intends to visit during her visit to USA etc. It is seen that Applicant is having deep roots in Mumbai and prima facie she is having the medical ailment for which she desires to take treatment from her home country i.e. USA details of which have already been given to the prosecution and appended to the Application. It is also seen that she has been taking medical treatment for her ailment in the USA even earlier. Prima facie there are no reason to disbelieve the same. The condition Nos. 6 and 7 both in the bail order dated 20.03.2025 stands deleted by issuing clarification that as and when Applicant desires to travel abroad it shall be mandatory for Applicant to inform in writing all such necessary details in writing on affidavit about her itinerary date of travel date of return details of the place where and with whom she will be residing during her visit details of the places which she intends to visit during her visit to abroad her phone number email ID etc. to the prosecution officer before she undertakes to travel abroad on affidavit and that she will undertake to respond to them in an emergency and shall fully co-operate with the investigation in the present case. This order shall be read along with order dated 20.03.2025. It is clarified that if there is any breach of this order by Applicant liberty is given to the prosecution to apply for revocation of this order by applying to this Court. Conclusion - The Applicant is accordingly permitted to travel abroad to USA as delineated in the bail order as corrected / modified by the present order subject to she abiding by the directives contained in the present order. Application allowed.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The primary legal questions considered by the Court in this matter were:
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Modification/Deletion of Bail Condition Regarding Passport Surrender and Travel Permission Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The Court relied on prior decisions of the same High Court in Mohammad Hanif Nurani Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Manish Gulabchand Birawat Vs. State of Maharashtra, which addressed the issue of bail conditions related to passport surrender and travel permissions under the Passport Act and criminal procedure norms. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court observed that the Applicant's case prima facie fell within the ambit of these precedents, which supported modification or deletion of similar bail conditions. The Court saw no impediment to allowing modification of the conditions, particularly those in prayer clauses (a) and (c) seeking deletion or relaxation of the passport surrender condition. Application of Law to Facts: The Applicant had complied with the Court's direction to meet the Investigating Officer and provide necessary details regarding her travel and medical condition. The Court emphasized the Applicant's willingness to cooperate and furnish all required information before traveling. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The prosecution opposed the modification primarily on grounds of flight risk, and because the Applicant had been summoned for hearings she was allegedly unaware of. The Court noted these objections but also highlighted the Applicant's cooperation and the absence of interrogation during custody, diminishing the prosecution's concerns. Conclusion: The Court found sufficient basis to modify the bail conditions related to passport surrender and travel permission, subject to the Applicant's compliance with detailed disclosure requirements and cooperation with investigation. Applicant's Request to Travel Abroad for Medical Treatment and Daughter's Graduation Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The Court considered medical necessity and humanitarian grounds as legitimate bases for modifying bail conditions to permit travel abroad, consistent with principles protecting personal liberty and health rights under criminal procedural law. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Applicant was diagnosed with Complex Regional Pain Syndrome requiring periodic Stellate Ganglion Block treatment under ultrasound guidance, which she was receiving in the USA prior to arrest. The Court acknowledged that while similar treatment might be available in India, the Applicant's status as an Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) and prior treatment history in the USA justified her preference and need to continue treatment there. Key Evidence and Findings: Detailed medical documents, prescriptions, appointment schedules, and itinerary were appended to the Application. The Court found these to be credible and sufficient to establish the medical necessity of travel. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The prosecution's argument that treatment could be undertaken in India was rejected as "preposterous," emphasizing that the Applicant could not be compelled to receive treatment in India against her preference, especially given her OCI status and prior treatment history abroad. Application of Law to Facts: The Court balanced the Applicant's medical needs and personal circumstances against prosecution concerns. It recognized the Applicant's right to seek medical care and attend a significant family event, while ensuring conditions to maintain cooperation with investigation. Conclusion: The Court accepted the Applicant's request to travel abroad for medical treatment and to attend her daughter's graduation, subject to strict disclosure and cooperation conditions. Applicant's Obligation to Cooperate with Investigation During and After Travel Relevant Legal Framework: Bail conditions customarily include cooperation with investigation and attendance at hearings. The Court emphasized the importance of such cooperation, especially when travel abroad is permitted. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Applicant had complied with directions to meet the Investigating Officer and provide details about her travel and medical condition. The Court directed that the Applicant must continue to furnish itinerary details, contact information, and cooperate fully with the investigation, including submission of bank statements and LIC policies as requested by prosecution. Treatment of Competing Arguments: While the prosecution expressed concerns about the Applicant being a flight risk and her awareness of summons, the Court noted the Applicant's cooperation and willingness to comply with all investigative requirements, diminishing the prosecution's apprehensions. Conclusion: The Court imposed conditions requiring the Applicant to provide detailed travel information in advance and to remain available for investigation, thereby balancing liberty interests with prosecutorial concerns. Procedural and Substantive Implications of Modifying Bail Conditions Post-Bail Relevant Legal Framework: The Court recognized that modification of bail conditions post-grant of bail is permissible where circumstances justify such changes, especially to accommodate medical needs and personal exigencies. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court clarified that the modification of conditions Nos. 6 and 7 in the bail order dated 20.03.2025 was warranted, with the proviso that the Applicant must inform the prosecution in writing, under affidavit, of all travel-related details before departure and maintain communication during travel. Application of Law to Facts: The Court set out a framework for future compliance, including informing the prosecution about passport renewals and itinerary changes, and made clear that any breach of these conditions could lead to revocation of bail. Conclusion: The Court's order provided a balanced approach, allowing the Applicant's travel while safeguarding prosecutorial interests through stringent conditions and oversight. 3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS The Court held:
Core principles established include the recognition of the Applicant's right to travel abroad for legitimate medical and personal reasons even while on bail, subject to strict conditions ensuring cooperation with investigation and safeguarding against flight risk. The Court emphasized that bail conditions must be reasonable and not infringe upon fundamental rights unnecessarily, especially when supported by credible medical evidence and personal exigencies. Final determinations included the deletion/modification of passport surrender and travel permission conditions, allowing the Applicant to travel to the USA for treatment and family reasons, subject to detailed disclosure and cooperation requirements. The Court quashed the Magistrate's order denying travel and directed immediate return of the passport upon production of the Court's order.
|
