JUDGMENT :

ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J.

By way of the present petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’) the petitioners seek setting-aside of order dated 06.11.2025 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi (‘CJM’), whereby travel restrictions have been imposed upon the petitioners requiring them to seek prior permission of the learned Magistrate before travelling abroad.

2. Notice on the present petition was issued on 21.11.2025; pursuant to which Status Report dated 06.02.2026 has been filed by the State; and Reply dated 29.11.2025 alongwith an additional affidavit dated 10.03.2026 have been filed by respondents Nos. 2 and 3. Written submissions have also been filed by the petitioners and respondents Nos. 2 and 3.

3. The court has heard Mr. Jayant K. Sud, learned senior counsel for petitioner No.1, Mr. Ujjawal Anand Sharma, learned counsel for petitioner No.2, Mr. Amol Sinha, learned ASC for the State, as well as Mr. Hrishikesh Baruah, learned counsel appearing for respondents Nos. 2 and 3.

BRIEF FACTS

4. The brief factual background necessary for deciding the present petition is set-out below:

4.1. Vidé order dated 23.03.2021 passed by the learned CMM, New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi (‘CMM’), the petitioners herein were granted bail in CC No. 10/2019 arising from case FIR No. 337/2016 dated 27.04.2016 registered under sections 420/406/422/424/409/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) at P.S.: Vasant Kunj South, Delhi. Consequent upon completion of investigation, chargesheet dated 21.12.2018 was filed under sections 420/120B of the IPC.

4.2. Upon an apprehension that the petitioners would abscond, in September 2024, the authorized representative of the complainant company/respondent No. 2 filed an application before the learned CJM praying that restrictions be placed upon the petitioners requiring them to seek prior permission of the court before travelling outside India.

4.3. Vidé order dated 15.02.2025, on the complainant’s application, the learned CJM introduced the condition directing the petitioners to take prior permission of the court before leaving the country.

4.4. Aggrieved by the aforementioned condition imposed, the petitioners filed revision petitions before the learned Sessions Court. Vidé order dated 28.02.2025, the learned Sessions Court stayed the operation of order dated 15.02.2025 passed by the learned CJM qua petitioner No. 2; and opined as under:

“Suffice to note herein that at the time of initial bail order, no condition was imposed on applicant/accused no. 3 Vikramjit Roy, I am of the opinion that the Ld. Magistrate Court have no power to review its own order passed earlier as such power is vested with the Sessions Court or by the Hon'ble High Court.

“In view of the above observations, the operation of order dated 15.02.2025 is stayed till further orders. At the same time, one more aspect, to my mind, is required to be considered that trial should not suffer in any manner owing to the absence of the accused. Thus, it can be said that in the fitness of things intimation of going abroad can be given by the applicant/accused before hand, in case of any foreign visit. Needless to say that the accused No. 3 shall give due instructions to his advocate to appear.

* * * * *

“Ld. Counsel for the revisionist submits that this condition would again tentamount to a condition in the bail order.

“I shall dispose off the revision petition on the NDOH and this order is only till the interregnum.” (emphasis supplied)

4.5. In view of the above, vidé order dated 05.04.2025 learned Sessions Court stayed the operation of order dated 15.02.2025 passed by the learned CJM qua petitioner No. 1 as well; and observed as under:

“I have already granted the similar relief to co accused Vikramjit Roy. Considering the same, Shabir Momin is granted permission to tr