Pending Tax Evasion Case Not Sufficient Ground To Deny Foreign Travel: Bombay High Court
A businessman facing customs duty evasion charges was restrained from attending an international furniture fair in Paris.
Justice S.M. Modak, Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court has ruled that the mere existence of a pending tax evasion case is not, by itself, sufficient reason to prohibit an accused individual from travelling abroad.
The Court had declined to restrain a businessman facing customs duty evasion charges from attending an international furniture fair in Paris.
A Bench of Justice SM Modak emphasized, "It is true right to travel abroad is recognized as a fundamental right. Merely because a person is facing with prosecution, it does not mean that he cannot travel abroad till the time the investigation is under progress or criminal case is pending.”
Background
The accused, a furniture businessman, had been booked by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), Mumbai, under Sections 135(1)(a) and 135(1)(b) of the Customs Act. He was accused of attempting to evade customs duties during the import of furniture.
Following his arrest by the DRI, he was released on bail by an Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. As part of his bail conditions, he was required to surrender his passport for six months and obtain prior permission from the trial court before undertaking any international travel.
Subsequently, he filed an application before the trial court seeking permission to travel to Paris from September 4 to 10, 2025, to attend an international furniture exhibition. Despite opposition from the DRI, the trial court granted him permission to travel.
This decision was challenged before the Bombay High Court through a writ petition. The petitioner argued that allowing him to travel abroad posed a risk of evidence tampering. It was also pointed out that an application to cancel the bail granted to him was pending and had not yet been adjudicated.
Findings
The Court upheld the trial court’s decision, stating that the prosecution’s concerns, while valid, needed to be balanced against the fundamental rights of the accused.
"Even I am of this opinion that mere because investigation is going on, the Respondent No.1 cannot be restrained from attending international furniture fair. Already the learned Magistrate has directed Respondent No.1 to deposit cash surety of Rs.2 lacs with condition to claim refund. One does not know how much time will be taken for hearing of application for cancellation of bail. It is scheduled for hearing on 11th September 2025 whereas till the time of hearing the fair will be over. The permission is granted (to travel abroad) from 4th September 2025 till 10th September 2025," the Court said.
To address the petitioner’s concerns, the Court suggested that he could undertake not to engage with exporters or tamper with evidence during his travel. This undertaking was to be submitted before the trial court prior to his departure.
Cause Title: Sruti Vijaykumar v. Falgun Yogendra Shroff & Anr., [2025:BHC-AS:37532]
Appearance:
Petitioner: Senior Standing Counsel Shyamrishi R. Pathak, assisted by Advocates Ganesh Singh and Jyoti Borai.
Respondents: Advocates Dr. Sujay Kantawala, Bhushan Shah, Akash Jain, Aishwarya Kantawala, Mohd. Lokandwala, Jeffry Caleb, Ayushi Jha, and Gaurav Ekekar, briefed by Mansukhlal Hiralal & Co., Additional Public Prosecutor A.S. Gawai.
