Anticipatory bail travel restrictions may be relaxed where summons compliance and disclosure safeguards secure attendance at trial.

Passport-surrender and prior-permission conditions attached to anticipatory bail may be varied where they operate as an unnecessary restraint on foreign travel, particularly when the accused has cooperated in investigation, appeared on summons, and shown genuine business or medical need to travel. Section 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 supports requiring a bond for appearance when a person is present in court pursuant to summons, and the court may instead preserve attendance through safeguards such as prior disclosure of travel particulars to the investigating agency. The travel restrictions were therefore modified, while ensuring continued attendance at trial.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the conditions requiring surrender of passport and prior permission of the Special CBI Court for foreign travel, imposed while granting anticipatory bail, should be deleted; (ii) Whether the applicant's appearance on summons and the legal position under Section 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 justified modification of the bail conditions.

Issue (i): Whether the conditions requiring surrender of passport and prior permission of the Special CBI Court for foreign travel, imposed while granting anticipatory bail, should be deleted.

Analysis: The applicant had participated in investigation, the charge-sheet had been filed, and he had demonstrated repeated foreign travel for business and medical treatment. The restriction of depositing the passport after each trip and seeking court permission for every departure was found to be cumbersome, time-consuming, and detrimental to urgent business and medical travel. The Court also noted the applicant's deep roots in India and the absence of any demonstrated misuse of liberty during earlier travels.

Conclusion: The twin conditions were deleted in favour of the applicant.

Issue (ii): Whether the applicant's appearance on summons and the legal position under Section 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 justified modification of the bail conditions.

Analysis: The Court relied on the principle that where a person is present in court pursuant to summons, the court may require execution of a bond for appearance under Section 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. On the facts, the applicant had appeared when summoned and had not been arrested during investigation. The Court treated this as supporting interference with the additional travel restrictions and held that appropriate safeguards could be imposed by requiring prior disclosure of travel particulars to the investigating agency.

Conclusion: The legal position supported deletion of the impugned conditions, subject to disclosure safeguards, in favour of the applicant.

Final Conclusion: The interim applications succeeded and the travel-related bail restrictions were modified, while ensuring continued attendance at trial and prior intimation of foreign travel.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an accused has appeared on summons, has cooperated in investigation, and demonstrates genuine need for foreign travel, passport-surrender and prior-permission conditions may be varied if they operate as an unnecessary fetter, provided adequate safeguards are imposed to secure appearance at trial.

---