Balancing Liberty and Inquiry: Bombay High Court Rules on Travel Rights During DRI Investigations

In a significant order addressing the intersection of fundamental rights and ongoing criminal investigations, the Bombay High Court has upheld a directive allowing an accused person to travel abroad despite a pending Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) probe. Justice S.M. Modak, presiding over the matter, emphasized that an ongoing investigation does not automatically strip an individual of their right to travel, provided sufficient safeguards are implemented to protect the integrity of the process.

The Genesis of the Dispute

The petitioner, Sruti Vijaykumar, challenged an earlier order dated August 30, 2025, granted by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Esplanade . The respondent, Falgun Yogendra Shroff, had been granted bail on August 2, 2025, in a case involving the alleged misdeclaration and undervaluation of imported furniture, resulting in an estimated customs duty evasion of ₹30 Crores.

As a condition of his bail, the respondent’s passport had been surrendered. However, seeking to attend an international furniture fair in Paris, he applied for permission to retrieve his passport and travel abroad. While the lower court initially granted this request, the DRI approached the High Court to stay the order, citing potential risks of evidence tampering and the ongoing nature of their probe.

Arguments on the Table

The counsel for the petitioner (DRI) argued that modifications to bail conditions were procedurally sensitive and that the ongoing investigation—coupled with a pending application for bail cancellation before the Sessions Court —warranted a firm denial of travel. They cited past precedents, specifically Mayurkumar Jaysukhlal Gohel v. Union of India , to argue that courts should be wary of granting such relief when an accused might evade the investigative process.

Conversely, the respondent’s legal team maintained that the right to travel is a fundamental right. They provided evidence regarding the specific furniture fair and proposed an undertaking that the accused would neither contact exporters linked to the investigation nor fail to return for impending court hearings.

A Balanced Judicial Perspective

The Court observed that while the investigative agency’s concerns regarding evidence tampering are valid, the administration of justice requires a "balancing act." Justice Modak distinguished the present case from previous instances where travel was denied, noting that the specific facts—such as the absence of familial ties that might facilitate permanent relocation—weighed in favor of the applicant.

Furthermore, the Court addressed the power of the Magistrate to relax conditions, noting: > "Thus, by necessary implication the Court of JMFC is having implied power of relaxing the conditions which are imposed by it while granting bail."

Regarding the concern of tampering, the court added a layer of protection: > "There can be an additional condition that Respondent No.1 through his learned Advocate undertakes not to establish contact with the Exporters who are related to this case."

Key Observations

• Fundamental Rights: "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..."
• Balancing Act: "Ultimately, Court has to balance right of the investigating agency, on one hand and the right of the person facing prosecution to travel in India and abroad, on the other hand."
• Procedural Pragmatism: "Considering the averments and the photos and non-rebuttal by DRI, it is difficult to doubt about holding furniture fair."

Implications for Future Cases

By dismissing the writ petition, the Bombay High Court has affirmed that judicial discretion in bail matters remains flexible. Courts are not expected to impose blanket bans on the movement of accused persons simply because an investigation is active. Instead, the focus should remain on concrete safeguards—such as individual undertakings and clear, time-bound travel permissions—which allow for the exercise of personal liberty without compromising the investigational mandate. This ruling serves as a vital reminder that liberty and accountability can coexist through carefully crafted judicial conditions.