Bombay High Court Upholds Travel Permission for Accused in Customs Duty Evasion Case, Dismisses Writ Petition

Introduction

In the matter of Sruti Vijaykumar v. Falgun Yogendra Shroff and anr (Criminal Writ Petition No.4670 of 2025), the order dated 30.08.2025 was challenged which was passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Esplanade, permitting Respondent No.1 to travel abroad, including Paris, from 04.09.2025 to 10.09.2025. The Petitioner seeks quashing of that order and a stay on the Respondent’s travel, alleging possible interference with the ongoing investigation.

Brief Facts

• Respondent No.1 is an accused in File No. DRI/MZU/CI/INT-77/2025 registered by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), Mumbai, for offences under Sections 135(1)(a) and 135(1)(b) of the Customs Act involving alleged misdeclaration and undervaluation of imported furniture, with an estimated duty evasion of ₹30 crores.
• On 02.08.2025, Respondent No.1 was granted bail with conditions, including surrender of passport and prior permission for foreign travel.
• Respondent No.1 applied for release of his passport and permission to attend an international furniture fair in Paris. The Magistrate allowed the application, despite DRI’s objections.
• The Petitioner contends that an application for cancellation of bail is already pending before the Sessions Court and that permitting foreign travel would enable tampering with evidence.

Observations / Held

• The right to travel abroad is a recognized facet of Article 21 of the Constitution. A pending investigation does not automatically restrain an accused from foreign travel.
• The Court must balance the rights of the accused with the interests of investigation.
• The existence of an undisputed international fair, limited travel duration, and Respondent’s undertaking to return and avoid contacting exporters weigh in favour of allowing travel.
• Mere pendency of bail cancellation proceedings, fixed for hearing after the proposed travel period, is insufficient to restrain such travel.
• Additional safeguards, including undertakings and financial surety, can adequately protect investigative interests.

Conclusion In our considered view, the mere pendency of investigation or bail cancellation proceedings cannot, by itself, operate as a blanket restriction on the fundamental right of an individual to travel abroad. The liberty of Respondent No.1 must be balanced against the apprehensions of the investigating agency. Having regard to the limited duration of travel, the undisputed purpose of attending the international fair, and the undertakings furnished by the Respondent, we are satisfied that adequate safeguards can protect the course of investigation. Accordingly, the impugned order requires no interference, and the writ petition stands dismissed.

Authored by Ascend Legal Editorial Team. The opinions expressed are personal and do not constitute any legal advocacy.