$~196 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 474/2017 KAJAL .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Suruchi Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Shivangi Deol and Mr.

Gurmeet Singh, Advocates.

Petitioner in court.

versus STATE .....Respondent Through: Mr. Shoaib Haider, APP for the State with SI Sanjay Kumar, P.S.: Crime Branch, Chanakya Puri.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI

O R D E R

% 18.02.2026 CRL.M.A. 5580/2026 Exemption granted, subject to just exceptions.

The application stands disposed of.

CRL.M.A. 5579/2026(correction/modification of order)

By way of the present application filed under section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, the petitioner seeks modification of order dated 06.02.2017 to the extent of deletion/waiver of condition requiring the petitioner to take prior permission of the learned Trial Court before traveling outside India.

2. Ms. Suruchi Aggarwal, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits, that the petitioner is one amongst 100 accused persons implicated in case FIR No.41/2015 dated 18.03.2015 registered under sections 419/420/467/468/471/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at P.S.: Crime Branch, New Delhi; in which chargesheet was filed on 08.09.2015.

3. Ms. Aggarwal submits, that considering the number of accused persons involved, the trial is nowhere near conclusion.

4. She submits, that the petitioner was granted regular bail vide order dated 17.08.2015 subject inter-alia to a condition that she would not leave Delhi-NCR without prior permission of the learned Trial Court.

5. Senior counsel argues, that since the petitioner scrupulously abided by the conditions of bail, she was granted permission to travel outside Delhi-NCR on numerous occasions; and there was no allegation of any misuse of liberty in that behalf.

6. In this backdrop, learned senior counsel argues that vide order dated

06.02.2017 the learned Predecessor Bench, on a no-objection from the learned APP, deleted the condition against the restriction on the travelling outside Delhi-NCR, but instead placed a restriction on the petitioner from travelling outside India without prior permission of the learned Trial Court.

7. Ms. Aggarwal argues, that the petitioner is now a practicing lawyer in Delhi; and needs to travel abroad on work and leisure from time-to-

time.

8. It is argued, that considering the petitioner’s conduct over the past more than 10 years, the restriction on travelling abroad be also removed.

9. Issue notice.

10. Mr. Shoaib Haider, learned APP appears on behalf of the State on advance copy; accepts notice; and considering the averments in the application, leaves it to the court to pass appropriate orders.

11. The submissions made by Ms. Aggarwal are borne-out from the record. 12. On a conspectus of the circumstances obtaining in the matter, this court is inclined to allow the present application.

13. It is accordingly directed that the restriction imposed upon the petitioner, against travelling abroad without prior permission of the learned Trial Court contained in para 4 of order dated 06.02.2017 is deleted.

14. Needless to add, that the petitioner shall however be bound by all the other conditions of her regular bail granted in the matter.

15. Application stands disposed-of.

CRL.M.C. 474/2017

16. Petition already stood disposed-of vide order dated 06.02.2017.

ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J FEBRUARY 18, 2026 ds