P.C.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, and, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, heard finally.

2. The Petitioner, who is facing prosecution in Special Cases initiated by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) – Respondent No.1 for having allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 24(1) and 27 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (the Act of 1992) takes exception to the orders dated 4 November 2025 passed by the learned Special Judge – SEBI, directing the deposit of a sum of Rs.27,06,73,574/- with SEBI as a condition for travel to Thailand and UAE.

3. Shorn of superfluities, the background facts necessary for

determination of these petitions can be stated as under :

3.1 Respondent No.1 claimed that it had conducted a comprehensive investigation which revealed that the Petitioner was involved in a large scale manipulation of securities market. Investigation revealed the Petitioner and the co-accused violated Regulations 4(a) and (d) of the SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 1995. Eventually, complaints were filed against the Petitioners and co-accused for the offences punishable under Sections 24(1) and 27 of the Act, 1992.

3.2 By an order dated 6 April, 2016, the Petitioner was released on bail by the learned Special Judge, subject to certain conditions, inclusive of the condition that the Petitioner shall not leave the country without prior permission of the learned Special Judge.

3.3 In view of the aforesaid condition, the Petitioner has been seeking permissions to travel abroad, and such permissions have been granted on multiple occasions.

3.4 By an application dated 14 October 2025, the Petitioner sought permission to travel abroad i.e. Thailand from 5 November 2025 to 9 November 2025, for a family vacation, and UAE from 18 November 2025 to 28 November 2025, for a family wedding.

3.5 The Respondent No.1 resisted the application. It was, inter alia,

contended that the Petitioner has abused the liberty of bail and again indulged in manipulation of the securities market. The Petitioner was involved in front running. In the context of the allegations of front running, Respondent No.1 has issued an ex-parte interim order – cum – show cause notice dated 2 January 2025 under Sections 11 and 11-B of the Act, 1992 against the Petitioner and others. By the said order, noticees including the Petitioner were directed to disgorge an amount of Rs.65,77,11,547/-. The Petitioner has been restrained from entering into transactions in securities.

3.6 By the impugned order, learned Special Judge was persuaded to grant permission to the Petitioner to travel abroad, subject to condition of deposit of a sum of Rs.27,06,73,574/-, which had yet not been deposited in accordance with the ex-parte order dated 2 January 2025, amongst other conditions. Learned Special Judge was of the view that, the noticee at Sr. Nos.2 to 7 had deposited an amount of Rs.38,70,37,973/-, the Petitioner had not challenged the said ex-parte interim order dated 2 January 2025 and, thus, it would be appropriate to grant permission to the Petitioner to travel abroad subject to the deposit of the said amount.

4. Being aggrieved, the Petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction.

5. I have heard Mr. Amit Desai, learned Senior Advocate for the Petitioner, and Mr. Chetan Kapadia, learned Senior Advocate for the Respondent No.1 – SEBI, at some length. With the assistance of the learned Counsel for the

parties, I have also perused the material on record.

6. Mr. Desai, learned Senior Advocate for the Petitioner, submitted that the onerous condition of deposit of a huge sum of Rs.27,06,73,574/-, in effect, negates the permission granted by the learned Special Judge, to travel abroad. It was submitted that the Petitioner is definitely not a flight risk as the Petitioner had travelled abroad during the pendency of these complaints on umpteen occasions and had compl