Right to Travel and Bail Conditions
Subject : Criminal Law - Bail and Travel Restrictions
In a significant ruling regarding the balance between judicial conditions and personal liberty, the Bombay High Court has set aside an order by a Special Judge that demanded a massive deposit of over ₹27 crore as a precondition for foreign travel. Justice N.J. Jamadar emphasized that conditions attached to travel permissions must be reasonable and proportional to the objective of ensuring the presence of an accused during trial.
The petitioner, Ketan V. Parekh, has been facing prosecution by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) for over a decade regarding alleged market manipulation. While out on bail since 2016, Parekh has frequently sought and received permission to travel abroad.
The dispute arose when the Special Judge, hearing the SEBI-initiated cases, granted permission for an upcoming family trip to Thailand and the UAE, but imposed a heavy financial barrier: a deposit of ₹27,06,73,574. This amount was derivative of an ex-parte interim order issued by SEBI in January 2025, which had yet to attain finality or be enforced through recovery proceedings.
Counsel for the petitioner argued that the court’s condition was "onerous" and effectively negated the very permission it purported to grant. They contended that because the petitioner had traveled abroad on numerous occasions without incident, he was clearly not a flight risk. Furthermore, legal counsel highlighted that the SEBI interim order was collateral to the current prosecution and not a final determination of liability.
Conversely, SEBI argued that the petitioner’s past conduct and alleged involvement in market malpractices warranted a strict judicial approach. Asserting that "economic offences constitute a class apart," SEBI maintained that the Special Judge rightly exercised discretion to balance equities by ensuring the petitioner remained financially accessible for future disgorgement.
Justice N.J. Jamadar underscored that the right to travel abroad is an integral facet of the right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court clarified that while a judge has the power to set conditions for travel, these must have a "reasonable nexus" with the object of maintaining the integrity of the trial.
The Court noted that the Special Judge failed to establish that the deposit was necessary to ensure the petitioner's presence or that he was a flight risk. Instead, the condition acted as an enforcement mechanism for a separate regulatory order.
The judgment offers a clear view on the limits of judicial discretion:
The High Court quashed the ₹27-crore deposit requirement, replacing it with a condition to deposit ₹5,00,000 for each case as a security bond. This ruling clarifies that courts cannot leverage bail conditions to act as collectors for regulatory bodies in matters exceeding the scope of the criminal trial at hand.
By prioritizing the proportionality of conditions, the Bombay High Court has reinforced that judicial authority in bail matters must remain focused on court processes rather than serving as a proxy for civil recovery proceedings.
View the social posts created for this story.
Proportionality - Bail Conditions - Regulatory Orders - Judicial Discretion - Personal Liberty
#BombayHighCourt #RightToTravel
Assigning Administrative Charges to Tainted Officials Violates Natural Justice: MP High Court Quashes PWD Order
16 Jun 2026
SC Rules Walking on Footpaths is Fundamental Right
19 Jun 2026
Senior Citizens Act Cannot Be Invoked for Title Disputes Unless Section 23 Applies: Allahabad High Court
04 Jul 2026
Vague And Nebulous Allegations Do Not Warrant Judicial Interference In Policy Matters: Patna High Court
04 Jul 2026
12-Year Possession Mandatory To Resist Land Eviction: Jharkhand HC
04 Jul 2026
Advocates Have No Right to Demand Out-Of-Turn Listing of Cases: Madras High Court
07 Jul 2026
Delhi High Court Examines Personality Rights in Cricket Lawsuit
07 Jul 2026
Sale of Expired Food Products Amounts to Deficiency in Service: Kurnool Consumer Commission Imposes Punitive Damages Under Consumer Protection Act, 2019
13 Jul 2026
Gujarat HC Stays Divorce Decree Under Section 15 of Hindu Marriage Act
15 Jul 2026
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.