A court may keep a condition requiring the surrender of a passport in abeyance for a limited period if the applicant demonstrates a consistent history of compliance with previous travel permissions and provides sufficient financial surety.

IA ORDER

1. Heard learned advocate Mr. P.R.Abichandani on behalf of the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. J.K. Shah on behalf of the respondent – State.

2. By way of this application, the applicant has sought for modification of condition no.8(f) of the order dated 19.09.2022, whereby the applicant was directed to surrender his passport and furthermore, it was directed that the applicant shall not leave India without permission of the Court.

3. Learned Advocate Mr. Abichandani would submit that as a matter of fact, applications with the very selfsame relief had been made by the applicant and whereas while vide orders dated 22.12.2023, 12.04.2024 and 01.07.2025 had permitted the applicant to travel abroad and whereas this Court had also recorded the submissions of learned Advocate Mr. Abichandani that the applicant, due to circumstances beyond the control of the applicant, he could not travel as per liberty granted vide order dated 22.12.2023. It is further submitted that the applicant had travelled as per the liberty given under orders dated 12.04.2024 and 01.07.2025 and had deposited his passport within the stipulated time. Learned Advocate would submit that since the applicant wants to travel abroad and would request that this Court may grant the present application and whereas learned Advocate Mr. Abichandani would submit that the applicant has not sought for refund of the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- as surety for the applicant returning within the time limit as stipulated by this Court as directed vide order dated 12.04.2024. Leaned advocate would further submit that the fresh travel tickets and itinerary would be supplied by the applicant to the learned Trial Court concerned.

4. It is also brought to the notice of this Court by the learned advocate Mr. Abichandani that while the applicant had been permitted to travel abroad vide order dated 12.04.2024 reflects that the applicant was permitted to travel to Dubai, whereas the dates mention clearly show that the applicant was permitted to travel to Dubai and to USA also. Learned advocate would also point out to the e-ticket, which is annexed along with the application filed, which has led to order dated 12.04.2024 passed and whereas, it is submitted that this Court may make appropriate observations with regard to the same.

5. Learned advocate Mr. Abichandani would draw the attention of this Court to the ticket, based upon which the applicant intends to travel, which would show the applicant intended to travel from 30.04.2026 to Dubai. Learned advocate would submit that this Court may appropriately grant the permission to the applicant to travel abroad. In the alternative, learned advocate would further submit that as such, since the applicant, whenever he had been permitted to travel herein before, had strictly complied with the conditions and whereas it is submitted that if the condition No.8(f) can be kept in abeyance for some time period, the applicant may not be required to make such application time and again.

6. Considering the submissions made by the learned advocate in so far as order dated 12.04.2024, it would appear to this Court that the non-mentioning of permission to travel to USA, appears to be an inadvertent error and whereas nothing turns on it.

7. Considering such a position, to this Court, it would appear that while the applicant is permitted to travel abroad as per the tickets referred to hereinabove, the condition No.8(f) is required to be kept in abeyance