Right to Travel Abroad Persists During Investigation: Bombay HC Upholds Bail Relaxation in Customs Act Case - 2025-09-03

Balancing Freedom and Investigation: When Can an Accused Travel Abroad?

In a significant ruling addressing the intersection of personal liberty and investigative oversight, the High Court of Judicature at Bombay has clarified the parameters for allowing an accused individual to travel abroad while criminal proceedings are pending. Justice S.M. Modak of the Bombay High Court upheld a trial court's decision to permit an accused party to travel to France for a furniture fair, despite objections from the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI).

The Backdrop: Bail, Customs, and a Furniture Fair

The case involves the respondent, Falgun Yogendra Shroff, who is currently under investigation by the DRI for alleged customs duty evasion amounting to approximately ₹30 crores, involving the misdeclaration and undervaluation of furniture imports. Following his release on bail on August 2, 2025, the respondent was required to surrender his passport and seek court permission for international travel.

Seeking to attend an international furniture fair in Paris, the respondent obtained permission from the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. This order was subsequently challenged by the petitioner, raising concerns that the respondent might use the travel as an opportunity to tamper with critical evidence by contacting exporters abroad.

Arguments on the Scales of Justice

The petitioner, represented by their counsel, argued that the ongoing investigation—coupled with a pending application for the cancellation of bail—necessitated a stay on the travel order. The core apprehension was that the lack of oversight during the respondent's time in France would allow him to interfere with the integrity of the DRI's investigation.

Conversely, the respondent countered that the right to travel abroad is a protected fundamental right. Relying on the precedent set in Dr. Rajaram v. State of Maharashtra , his counsel argued that trial courts possess the implied power to relax bail conditions to accommodate the reasonable movements of an accused, provided the state's interest remains protected. To alleviate the court's concerns, the respondent volunteered an additional undertaking to specifically avoid contact with any exporters linked to the ongoing case.

Legal Analysis: The Balancing Act

Justice S.M. Modak’s judgment emphasizes that the court must consistently perform a balancing exercise between the investigating agency’s concerns and the fundamental rights of the accused. The High Court rejected the notion that the mere pendency of an investigation or a bail cancellation plea acts as an absolute bar on travel. Instead, the court assessed the necessity of the travel—finding the furniture fair to be a legitimate business event—and the adequacy of existing safeguards.

Unlike previous cases where travel was denied due to flight risks or international family ties (such as the Mayurkumar Jaysukhlal Gohel case), this situation involved a transient, time-bound business commitment with no evidence suggesting a risk of absconding.

Key Observations

The Court underscored the following principles in its ruling:

• Recognition of 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 till the time the investigation is under progress or criminal case is pending."
• The Burden of Balancing: "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."
• Judicial Discretion: "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."
• Implied Authority: "Thus by necessary implication the Court of JMFC is having implied power of relaxing the conditions which are imposed by it while granting bail."

The Final Verdict: Permission Granted with Safeguards

The Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petition, thereby allowing the respondent’s travel. To further mitigate concerns of witness or evidence tampering, the Court directed the respondent to file a formal undertaking before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, explicitly vowing to maintain no contact with the relevant exporters during his stay in France.

This ruling reinforces a pragmatic approach to bail conditions, suggesting that courts should prioritize targeted, restrictive undertakings over blanket travel bans, provided the integrity of the ongoing investigation can be maintained. For legal practitioners, the decision serves as a reminder that the court remains the final arbiter of proportionality in bail management.