2002 (9) TMI 124 - HC - Customs

Supreme Court Limits Passport Release for Abroad Travel: Business Exception Granted

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision to restrict the release of the petitioner's passport for travel abroad, emphasizing concerns of duty ... Right to travel abroad as part of personal liberty under Article 21 - Impounding of passport by investigative authorities - Anticipatory bail and its conditions - Risk of absconding and balance of convenience - Conditioning release of passport on security (bank guarantee and surety)Right to travel abroad as part of personal liberty under Article 21 - Impounding of passport by investigative authorities - Risk of absconding and balance of convenience - Conditioning release of passport on security (bank guarantee and surety) - Anticipatory bail and its conditions - Whether the petitioner, who is on anticipatory bail and whose passport was retained by Customs, could be permitted to travel abroad and on what conditions. - HELD THAT: - The Court examined the petitioner's past compliance with bail conditions, noting five prior visits to Dubai after grant of bail and his consistent returns, and his substantial business interests as a partner in multiple export concerns, including a 100% export oriented unit, which militated against a real likelihood of absconding. The Court further observed that the ongoing probe related to Dubai whereas the petitioner sought to visit Egypt and Turkey, reducing the risk of evidence tampering. Balancing the petitioner's commercial necessity to travel and the State's interest in preventing flight, the Court exercised its discretion to permit foreign travel subject to conditions designed to allay the risk of non-return. The petitioner was allowed to visit Turkey and Egypt for one month, ordered to return on expiry of that period, and the Customs Authorities were directed to release the passport forthwith, provided the petitioner furnished a bank guarantee and one surety for the specified amount to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar. The Court considered earlier orders declining similar permission but proceeded on the factual matrix of this petition and imposed strict conditions to protect the investigation and revenue interests. [Paras 3, 5, 6]Petition allowed; petitioner permitted to visit Turkey and Egypt for one month, passport to be released forthwith subject to furnishing a bank guarantee and one surety and to the condition of return on expiry of the travel period.Final Conclusion: The petition for release of the passport is allowed on terms: limited onemonth travel to Turkey and Egypt, immediate release of the passport by Customs, and requirement of a bank guarantee and one surety to secure return, thereby balancing the petitioner's liberty and business needs with the State's interest in safeguarding the investigation and revenue. Issues:Release of passport for travel abroad, violation of fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.Analysis:The petitioner, on anticipatory bail, sought the release of his passport to travel abroad for business purposes. He was accused in a case related to fraudulent export activities causing revenue loss. Customs Authorities failed to file charges within the required period, leading to his release on bail. Anticipatory bail was granted later, with conditions including surrendering the passport. The petitioner requested passport release for a Dubai trip, permitted by the Sessions Judge. Customs Authorities challenged this decision through a revision petition, which was allowed by the High Court and upheld by the Supreme Court.Fundamental Right Contention:The petitioner's counsel argued that the restriction on foreign travel violated his fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. Citing legal precedent, it was contended that the right to travel abroad is part of personal liberty and cannot be curtailed without due process. The lack of a hearing before impounding the passport was highlighted as a violation of the petitioner's rights.Government's Argument:The Senior Standing Counsel for the Union of India opposed the petitioner's travel, citing concerns about potential evasion of duty and non-return. It was suggested that permission should have been sought from the Court of Session initially. Previous refusals of travel permission and dismissal of appeals were also mentioned to support the argument against allowing the petitioner to go abroad.Judgment:The High Court considered the petitioner's past travel history, business interests in India, and the nature of his export-oriented business. It was noted that the petitioner had returned from previous trips and had substantial stakes in domestic enterprises. Given the legitimate business reasons for travel and the absence of evidence tampering concerns, the Court allowed the petitioner to visit Turkey and Egypt for one month. The release of the passport was ordered, subject to the petitioner furnishing a bank guarantee and surety to ensure his return after the specified period.This comprehensive analysis of the judgment outlines the issues, legal arguments, and the Court's decision regarding the release of the passport for foreign travel and the alleged violation of the fundamental right to personal liberty.