TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (10) TMI 1258
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itions for revalidation of the Green Card would not be fulfilled. The High Court declined to relax the conditions imposed by it for the grant of interim bail on the ground that an FIR has been registered against the appellant. Though the period during which the appellant sought to travel abroad has lapsed, the cause survives. The appeal raises interesting issues about the interface between the fundamental right to travel abroad and its curtailment under a judicial order as an incident to regulate conditions governing the grant of bail. 3. The genesis of the present case arises from a private complaint which was filed in January 2014 by Mehraj Rajabali Merchant in the court of the JMFC Thane alleging that the appellant has fabricated a Power of Attorney dated 19 December 2011 by forging the signature of his brother, Shalin Lokhandawalla. On 10 April 2014, the JMFC passed an order, by which he directed an investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 "CrPC" in terms of the following directions: "1. The Kapurbavdi police station is directed to register the crime and investigate into the matter. 2. Further it is hereby directed to submit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....; Mumbai 22. 3/11/2017 Mumbai 23. 11/11/2017 India (City not known) 24. 26/2/2018 Mumbai 25. 1/6/2018 Mumbai 26. 10/7/2018 India (City not known) 27. 26/9/2018 Mumbai 28. 26/10/2018 Mumbai 29. 22/11/2018 Mumbai 30. 14/12/2018 Mumbai 31. 4/4/2019 Mumbai 32. 22/5/2019 Mumbai 33. 10/1/2020 Mumbai 7 The appellant arrived in India on 10 January 2020. He was arrested on 21 February 2020 at the point of departure in Mumbai in pursuance of a look-out notice which appears to have been issued on the basis of the FIR dated 22 April 2014. An application for bail was filed before the Sessions Court in the first week of March 2020 but was rejected on 4 May 2020. On 23 April 2020, the appellant filed an application for bail before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay. The High Court, by its order dated 19 May 2020, granted temporary bail to the appellant, subject to the following conditions: "a) The applicant be released on temporary bail for a period of e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....proceedings under this chapter and extradition proceedings, (v) has committed an offense identified in section 1182(a)(2) of this title, unless since such offense the alien has been granted relief under section 1182(h) or 1229b(a) of this title, or is attempting to enter at a time or place other than as designated by immigration officers or has not been admitted to the United States after inspection and authorization by an immigration officer." 9 The High Court, by its order dated 26 June 2020, rejected the application for considering his prayer for relaxing the conditions attaching to the grant of interim bail following which the appellant moved this Court SLP (Crl) No 3034 of 2020. By an order dated 13 July 2020, this Court requested the High Court to take up the IA filed by the appellant seeking permission to travel to the US, at an early date. This Court, in its order dated 13 July 2020, noted the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant in paragraph 2 of its order and then issued the following directions: "2. Mr Subhash Jha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that in the event that the petitioner is unable to arrive....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....registration of an FIR should not preclude him from travelling to the US, failing which he would incur serious consequences of the invalidation of his Green Card; (vii) While the court which grants bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 can impose conditions which ensure the presence of the accused to face trial, the conditions must balance the liberty of the accused and not result in the arbitrary deprivation of the right to livelihood; and (viii) The order of the JMFC dated 10 April 2014 has been passed as a matter of routine course without application of mind and has been misused by the police machinery to harass and arrest the appellant at the behest of an adversary. 12 Mr Jha further submitted that the appellant would undertake to come to India on every hearing of the criminal cases before the concerned courts and he has no intention to evade the process of law. Mr. Jha has stated that in pursuance of the notice issued by this court, the complainant has been served. 13 On the other hand, Mr. Sachin Patil, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Maharashtra, who appeared in pursuance of the notice issued by this Court o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e onerous and arbitrary, observed: "9. ...Sub-clause (c) of Section 437(3) allows Courts to impose such conditions in the interest of justice. We are aware that palpably such wordings are capable of accepting broader meaning. But such conditions cannot be arbitrary, fanciful or extend beyond the ends of the provision. The phrase 'interest of justice' as used under the Sub-clause (c) of Section 437(3) means "good administration of justice" or "advancing the trial process" and inclusion of broader meaning should be shunned because of purposive interpretation. 10. ... from the perusal of the impugned order it is clear that the court exceeded its jurisdiction in imposing such arbitrary conditions. Some of the conditions imposed are highly onerous and are absurd. Such onerous anticipatory bail conditions are alien and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. The conditions imposed appear to have no nexus with the good administration of justice or advancing the trial process, rather it is an over-zealous exercise in utter disregard to the very purpose of the criminal justice system. In view of the above, the impugned order passed by the High Court is set aside an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ourt for travel abroad. The condition, which was originally imposed by the High Court while granting anticipatory bail was subsequently deleted by it. This Court made the following observations with respect to imposing restrictions on the accused's right to travel: "9. ....There could be no gainsaying to that the right to travel abroad is a valuable one and an integral part of the right to personal liberty. Equally, however, the pre-condition of securing prior permission before travelling abroad is a crucial ingredient which undoubtedly was engrafted as a condition for the grant of anticipatory-bail in this case. ......At best, the condition for seeking permission before travelling abroad could have been regulated, not deleted altogether." 19 This Court has passed multiple orders previously allowing an accused enlarged on bail to travel abroad. In Ganpati Ramnath v State of Bihar Crlmp. Nos. 6304 & 6305/2017 in Criminal Appeal Nos. 1187/2004, order dated 4 May 2017., this Court allowed an accused-applicant to travel abroad for medical treatment, modifying its earlier bail order, noting that the applicant had travelled abroad on the ground of medical necessity on six occ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Court & Case Parties Disposal Date 1. 4th Civil Judge S D, Thane RCS/200143/2011 Parvez Noor. Lokhandwala Vs Firdaus Rajabali Merchant 07/01/2013 2. Dist & Session Court, Thane Civil MA/100012/2008 Shalin Noor. Lokhandwala Vs. Hindustan Petroleum 11/08/2015 3. 2nd Joint Civil Judge SD, Thane RCS/201901/2012 Farida Noor. Lokhandwala Vs. Farida Firoz Lokhandwala 22/01/2019 4. 4th Joint Civil Judge SD, Thane Sp. Case/200905/2012 Farida Noor. Lokhandwala Vs. Farida Firoz Lokhandwala 13/09/2019 III. Cases initiated by Merchants (Active) Sr. No. Court & Case Parties Stage Next date 1. 2nd Joint Judge, Sr. Division, Thane Sp. Case/200393/2010 Firdaus Rajabali Merchant Vs. Farida Firoz Lokhandwala Argument 3.8.2020 2. 2nd Civil Judge, JD, JMFC, Thane - Misc. Cr. Application 799/2017 Firdaus Rajabali Merchant Vs. 1. Parvez N. Lokhandwala 2. Farida N. Lokhandwala Order 10.8.2020 3. 8th Dist. Judge MCA/10/2020 Mehraj Rajabali Merchant Vs. 1. Parvez Noor. Lokhandwala 2. Farida Noor. Lokhandwala 3. Faizmin Amin Husain 4. Din....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Shalin. Mr. Jha submits that, as a matter of fact, the Power of Attorney has not been used at any point; his brother was present in India at the time when conveyance was entered into; and that his brother has never raised any objection. However, we are not inclined to go into these factual aspects at the present stage. It would suffice to note that the co-accused was granted bail by the Sessions Judge Thane on 16 April 2018. We are called upon to decide only whether the appellant should be permitted to travel to the US for eight weeks. In evaluating this issue, we must have regard to the nature of the allegations, the conduct of the appellant and above all, the need to ensure that he does not pose a risk of evading the prosecution. The details which have been furnished to the Court by the appellant, indicate that he has regularly travelled between the US and India on as many as sixteen occasions between 2015 and 2020. He has maintained a close contact with India. The view of the High Court that he has no contact with India is contrary to the material on record. The lodging of an FIR should not in the facts of the present case be a bar on the travel of the appellant to the US for e....