The Delhi High Court has rejected man’s plea to waive the condition of seeking prior permission from the Trial Court to travel abroad, which was imposed as a condition of his anticipatory bail. The Court emphasized that the fundamental right to travel abroad, especially in cases where an individual is facing criminal charges, is not an absolute right and is subject to reasonable restrictions.

Considering the seriousness of the allegations against the applicant, which involved multiple victims and a criminal conspiracy related to misappropriating funds, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed that “The case at hand is a multi-victim case and the allegations are serious in nature. The chargesheet against the applicant is yet to be filed. Furthermore, it is not the grievance of the applicant that on any occasion when he had applied for grant of permission to go abroad, the permission was denied to him”.

Advocate Shailendra Bhardwaj appeared for the Petitioner, whereas Advocate Satish Kumar appeared for the Respondent.

As per the brief facts, the applicant/accused was granted anticipatory bail in a case arising out of an FIR registered under Sections 406/409/467/468/471/120B of the Indian Penal Code. However, as a condition of his bail, he was required to deposit his passport with the Trial Court and seek the court's approval before leaving the country.

The applicant argued that despite more than 15 years having passed since the registration of the FIR, the Investigating Officer has not filed a charge-sheet against the applicant. It was further stated that the applicant's wife and two children are British Nationals residing in London, United Kingdom. The condition imposed by the court, requiring the applicant to seek permission each time he wants to visit his family, poses a significant hardship on him. Additionally, he was involved in the real estate business and was exploring business opportunities abroad, which required his presence overseas.

After considering the submission, the Bench found that it was alleged that the revenue officials had issued NOC in favour of Golden Projects Limited despite the fact that one Madan Lal had already requested the officials not to issue NOC in favour of anyone regarding the land in question.

The Bench further found that the complainant had alleged that as per his knowledge, M/s. Pearls Infrastructure Limited was a company created by the directors of Golden Projects Limited and the accused persons by way of a criminal conspiracy had forged a resolution and had resold the land in question.

“During investigation, it was revealed that SEBI had also filed several cases against Golden Projects Limited since the said company had grabbed the money of several investors. It was also revealed during investigation that the present applicant had brought the forged resolution in favour of Naresh Kumar and it was on the instructions of the applicant that Naresh Kumar had executed the sale deed of the land in question on the basis of said forged resolution”, added the Bench.

Further, the Bench noted that there had been no complaints from the applicant regarding the denial of permission to travel abroad on previous occasions.

Thus, given the entirety of the facts and circumstances surrounding the case, the High Court refused to waive the condition that had been imposed on the applicant.

Cause Title: Nikhil Kant Syal v. State of NCT of Delhi [2023: DHC: 7037]

Click here to read/ download the Judgment


Delhi High CourtJustice Swarana Kanta Sharma

Pankaj Bajpai