IMPORTANT POINT
The fundamental right to travel abroad in criminal cases is subject to reasonable restrictions, and the imposition of such restrictions is justified in the interest of justice.

JUDGMENT

Swarana Kanta Sharma, J. - The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (`Cr.P.C.') has been preferred by the petitioner seeking modification of the bail order dated 15.03.2023, passed by learned Additional Session Judge, Patiala House Court, New Delhi granting bail to petitioner inter alia on the ground that the condition that petitioner will not leave the country without the permission of the Court be deleted.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the present case are that the present FIR bearing No. 98/2023, registered at Police Station IGI Airport, under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (`IPC'), was registered on the complaint lodged by the complainant who had stated that she had met the main accused Gurbaksh Singh through a public platform, and they had started talking in relation to work and advisory related issues. Thereafter, the complainant and accused Gurbaksh Singh had met at Hotel Hyatt Regency where accused Gurbaksh Singh had requested the complainant to sit and talk and had made her drink alcohol. The accused Gurbaksh Singh had then started touching her inappropriately, and had even started recording videos of the same, which the complainant was able to see but could do nothing about since she was under the influence of alcohol. As alleged, the very next day the complainant had called the accused and had asked him to delete those videos which he told her were already deleted. In January 2023, the complainant had come to know that the videos were still in the possession of accused Gurbaksh Singh, and she again had requested him to delete the videos, and on the pretext of deleting the videos, the accused had called her to meet him at Hotel Le-Meridian Gurugram where he had taken her to his friend's room and had forcibly made her drink alcohol. The accused Gurbaksh Singh had then established physical relations with her. Thereafter, on 18.02.2023, accused Gurbaksh Sigh had again called complainant to Hotel JW Marriot, Aerocity, Delhi, on pretext of deleting the videos. The accused Gurbaksh Singh had then taken the complainant to the room of present accused/petitioner Rubi Shatir who was staying there. After making her drink alcohol forcefully, the accused persons namely Gurbaksh Singh, co-accused Atul Gandi and accused/petitioner Rubi Shatir had forcibly established physical relations with her. On these allegations, the present FIR dated 20.02.2023 was registered. The petitioner/accused was arrested on 06.03.2023 at the Bangalore Airport, Karnataka and was sent to judicial custody on 09.03.2023.

3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner states that investigation in the matter is complete qua the petitioner and charge sheet dated 18.04.2023 has been filed in the matter and the case is presently pending at the stage of arguments on charge. It is stated that petitioner herein is a retired colonel from Israel Army and is presently working as Vice President, Marketing in an Israel Company namely Elbit Systems and he visits India only for his professional commitments/work. It is also stated that petitioner is a permanent citizen of Israel and the family of the petitioner including his wife, daughters and old aged parents are all citizens and residents of Israel. It is argued that petitioner/accused earlier, on four occasions after taking permission from the Court, has travelled back to his home country and has not misused the liberty granted by the Court and had complied with each and every condition imposed vide orders granting permission to travel abroad. It is stated that every time when petitioner is required to travel back to his home country, he has to undergo the tortuous procedure of applying before the Court seeking permission to travel. It is also stated that petitioner has no place to stay in India (Delhi) and has to stay in hotels which financially affects him heavily. Therefore, it is argued that present petition be allowed.

4. Learned APP for the State, on the other hand,