Travel Abroad for Attending International Furniture Fair Cannot be Restrained merely due to Pending Customs Prosecution: Bombay HC [Read Order]
The court set an additional condition that Respondent No.1 through his Advocate undertakes not to establish contact with the Exporters who are related to this case and refused to stay the order
Bombay High Court, Travel Abroad
Bombay High Court, Travel Abroad
The Bombay High Court has held that travel abroad for attending the International Furniture Fair cannot be restrained merely due to pending customs prosecution.
Justice S.M. Modak viewed that, “mere because investigation is going on, the Respondent No.1 cannot be restrained from attending international furniture fair. Already the learned Magistrate has directed Respondent No.1 to deposit cash surety of Rs.2 lacs with condition to claim refund. One does not know how much time will be taken for hearing of application for cancellation of bail. It is scheduled for hearing on 11th September 2025 whereas till the time of hearing the fair will be over. The permission is granted from 4th September 2025 till 10th September 2025.”
Sruti Vijaykumar, the petitioner challenged the order passed by the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Esplanade which granted permission to Respondent No.1 to travel abroad including Paris and France from 4th September 2025 till 10th September 2025.
The present Respondent is an accused in connection with a file registered with Directorate of RevenueIntelligence ( ‘DRI’), Mumbai for an offence punishable under Section 135(1)(a) and 135(1)(b) of the Customs Act. He was granted bail by the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate on 2 nd August 2025 . Condition No.6 mentions surrendering the passport for the period of six months from the date of arrest. He has surrendered the passport. There is a further condition to obtain the permission for travelling abroad.
The Respondent No.1 applied for returning the passport and sought permission to travel abroad. This permission was sought as there is a furniture fair at Paris from 4 th September 2025 to 8 th September 2025. It is mentioned in Para No.5. The trial Court has granted the permission in spite of the objection on behalf of DRI. The said order is under challenge.
The permission is granted only for a short period and he justified the right of his client to travel abroad being a fundamental right and to attend the international furniture fair organised at Paris.
Primarily, there is opposition for grant of permission for the reason application for cancellation of the bail is pending before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai. The Petitioner apprehends that Respondent No.1 will tamper with the evidence when he will travel to Paris and France. Respondent No.1 is facing allegations of importing the furniture and other accessories by misdeclaration of the goods and undervaluation of imported furniture. According to DRI the evasion of custom duty is excavated to Rs.30 Crores.
It was viewed that the right to travel abroad is recognized as a fundamental right. Merely because a person is facing prosecution, it does not mean that he cannot travel abroad till the time the investigation is under progress or criminal case is pending. A
Admittedly, the case is under investigation, that is to say the DRI is in the process of collecting materials. When such a request is made on the say of the investigator, the Court has to consider whether there is possibility of tampering with the evidence if the permission to travel abroad is granted. There is one more factor which deals with availability of the accused person during the investigation.
It is true that DRI has not disputed the averments made in the application about organising the furniture fair at Paris. Mr. Pathak tried to explain this non-opposition by submitting that the photos were not annexed to the application. But these were averments is not disputed
The respondent undertakes that he will return to India and will participate in hearing the application for cancellation of bail. Conduct of international furniture fair depends upon the organisers and it is not that the present Respondent No.1 has organised that furniture fair.
The court set an additional condition that Respondent No.1 through his Advocate undertakes not to establish contact with the Exporters who are related to this case and refused to stay the order. The writ petition got dismissed.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
