Passport release and foreign travel permission may follow where absconding risk is low and business travel is bona fide.

A restriction on foreign travel and retention of a passport should not continue where the facts show no real likelihood of absconding or interference with evidence, and the travel is supported by bona fide business needs. The petitioner had previously travelled abroad and returned, maintained business interests in India, and sought travel for legitimate business purposes. On that basis, the HC held that continued withholding of the passport and refusal of travel permission were unwarranted, and permitted travel to Turkey and Egypt for one month subject to the bank guarantee and surety directed by the Court.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to release of his passport and permission to travel abroad despite the condition imposed in the anticipatory bail order.

Analysis: The petitioner had already travelled abroad on earlier occasions and returned to India, and he was engaged in business activities requiring foreign travel. The Court accepted that his interests in India reduced the likelihood of absconding and that the proposed travel was for business purposes. In these circumstances, continued retention of the passport and refusal of permission to travel were not warranted.

Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to permission to visit Turkey and Egypt for one month, and the Customs Authorities were directed to release his passport, subject to the bank guarantee and surety ordered by the Court.

Ratio Decidendi: A restriction on foreign travel and retention of a passport must yield where the facts show no real likelihood of absconding or tampering with evidence and the travel is justified by bona fide business needs.

---