HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD *****

CRIMINAL PETITION No.4978 of 2025 BETWEEN Shri Ali Ubais … Petitioner And The Senior Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence … Respondent Date of Judgment Pronounced: 02.07.2025 SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgments? (Yes/No)

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be (Yes/No)

marked to Law Reports/Journals?

3. Whether their Lordship/ Ladyship wish to (Yes/No)

see the fair copy of the Judgment?

_____________________ JUSTICE K. SUJANA * THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA +CRIMINAL PETITION No.4978 OF 2025 % Dated 02.07.2025 BETWEEN # Shri Ali Ubais … Petitioner And $ The Senior Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence … Respondent ! Counsel for Petitioners: Syed Ghiyasuddin ^ Counsel for respondents: Dominic Mario Fernandes, (Standing Counsel for Directorate of Revenue Intelligence)

> HEAD NOTE:

? Cases referred

1. 2008 SCC OnLine Bom 1347

2. Criminal Writ Petition No.877 of 2024

3. (2008) 3 SCC 674

4. Special Criminal Application No.1415 of 2017

5. Crl.M.C.No.1734 of 2011

6. AIR 1958 SC 376 7. (2003) 8 SCC 50 THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.4978 of 2025

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash the conditions imposed vide docket order dated 29.06.2024 passed in F.No.DRI.No.5 of 2024 (Comp.No.) in DRI/HZU/48D/ENQ – 25 (INT – 25)/2024, that was filed against the petitioner herein, by the respondent herein, on the file of the learned Special Judge for Trial of Cases under Economic Offences, Hyderabad i.e., seeking to direct the petitioner herein to deposit original passport bearing No.B82211252, along with original Resident Identity Card bearing Id No.784-1993-4202970-1 and to take permission from the Court before leaving the country. Thereby, by way of this petition, the petitioner herein prays this Court to direct the trial Court to return/release the original passport bearing No.B82211252 and original Resident Identity Card with I.D. No.784-1993-4202970-1, to him.

2. Heard Sri Syed Ghiyasuddin, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri Dominic Mario Fernandes, learned Standing Counsel for Directorate of Revenue Intelligence appearing on behalf of the respondent.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was arrayed as an accused for the offence punishable under Sections 132 and 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 and was produced before the trial Court on 29.06.2024 for remand. He further submitted that the value of the alleged goods recovered from the possession of the petitioner is Rs.67,11,250/-, which is less than one crore rupees, thereby, making the offence bailable under Section 135 of the Customs Act. Accordingly, the trial Court granted bail on the same day, directing the petitioner to execute a personal bond for Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties and imposed a condition requiring the petitioner to deposit his passport before the Court and obtain permission before leaving the country.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the direction issued by the trial Court to deposit the passport and obtain prior permission to travel abroad, while granting bail in a bailable offence, is without jurisdiction and violative of the fundamental rights of the petitioner guaranteed under Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India and that Section 436 of the Cr.P.C. categorically confers an “absolute and unfettered right”

to be enlarged on bail in bailable offences, and once bail is granted, the Court has no discretion to impose conditions not contemplated under the statute. He further submitted that in the present case, the trial Court, while acting under Section 436 Cr.P.C., had no authority to impose additional restrictions beyond what is permitted by law, particularly in directing the deposit of the passport and restricting international travel. I