P.C. :

The Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Esplanade as per the order dated 30th August 2025 has granted permission to Respondent No.1 to travel abroad including Paris and France from 4th September 2025 till 10th September 2025. The present petition challenges this order and also there is a prayer for staying the saidorder. As the Respondent No.1 is likely to leave India tomorrow., this petition is taken on production Board. Learned Advocate Dr. Shri Kantawala appeared on his own to represent Respondent No.1. I have heard both of them. By their consent I am deciding this petition finally.

2. The present Respondent is an accused in connection with File No.DRI/MZU/CI/INT-77/2025 registered with Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (for short ‘DRI’), Mumbai for an offence punishable under Section 135(1)(a) and 135(1)(b) of the Customs Act. He was granted bail by the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate on 2nd August 2025. Condition No.6 mentions about surrendering the passport for the period of six months from the date of arrest. He has surrendered the passport. There is a further condition to obtain the permission for travelling abroad.

3. After this order, Respondent No.1 applied for returning the passport and sought permission to travel abroad. This permission was sought as there is a furniture fair at Paris from 4th September 2025 to 8th September 2025. It is mentioned in Para No.5. The trial Court has granted the permission inspite of the objection on behalf of DRI. The said order is under challenge.

4. According to Dr. Shri Kantawala permission is granted only for short period and he justified the right of his client to travel abroad being a fundamental right and to attend the international furniturefair organised at Paris. He produced on record the relevant papers showing the organization of that fair. Admittedly, these papers were not annexed to the application before the trial Court but they were tendered when Application was argued. He tried to explain what are the allegations against his client. Even he places on record copy of order dated 26th August 2025 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge when application for cancellation of bail was adjourned and the learned Advocate for the Applicant-DRI was asked to argue on the issue of maintainability and now the matter is fixed for hearing on 11th September 2025.

5. He places reliance on the observations in case ofDr. Rajaram v/s. State of Maharashtra11 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 1111and more specifically observations in Para No. 6. It is in respect of power of the Magistrate to modify the conditions. When there is apprehension expressed by Mr. Pathak that the Respondent may tamper with evidence by contacting the exporters, Shri Kantawala submitted that his client undertakes not to meet those exporters.

6. Primarily, there is opposition for grant of permission for the reason application for cancellation of the bail is pending before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai. The Petitioner apprehends that Respondent No.1 will tamper with the evidence when he will travel to Paris and France. Respondent No.1 is facing allegation of importing the furniture and other accessories bymisdeclaration of the goods and undervaluation of imported furniture. According to DRI the evasion of custom duty is excavated to Rs.30 Crores.

7. Learned Advocate Shri Pathak has invited my attention to Para Nos.6 and 10 of the reply filed by DRI thereby opposing the prayer to travel abroad. According to Mr. Pathak even the learned Magistrate is not having power to modify the condition. He places reliance on the provisions of Section 483 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘B.N.S.S.’) which empowers this Court and Court of Sessions to modify the conditions imposed by the Magistrate. According to him even there is provision in Section 403 of B.N.S.S. which empowers the Court to alter the judgment, the present contingency will not fall under Section 403