Sri Bhavesh Seth vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The High Court noted the submission made by the respondent's counsel that the petitioner ought to have challenged the original bail order dated 10.07.2019, which imposed the condition of passport deposit, rather than filing a subsequent application for release and travel abroad. In light of this submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the present revision case. The Court granted this permission and dismissed the Criminal Revision Case as withdrawn. The petitioner was granted liberty to file a fresh petition challenging the condition of passport deposit imposed in the original bail order dated 10.07.2019. No specific finding was made on the merits of the trial court's order regarding the partial release for renewal or the dismissal of the travel abroad prayer.

Facts

The petitioner, Bhavesh Seth, was granted bail by the Special Judge for Economic Offences Cases on July 10, 2019, in Crl.M.P.No.258 of 2019. The bail conditions included executing a personal bond of Rs. 3,00,000/- with two sureties, appearing before the respondent (Union of India, represented by the Senior Intelligence Officer, Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence) every Monday, and surrendering his passport. The petitioner complied by depositing his passport. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an application (Crl.M.P.No.592 of 2025) seeking the release of his passport for renewal and permission to travel abroad. The respondent did not file a counter. The trial court partially allowed the application, permitting passport release for three months solely for renewal, subject to a Rs. 50,000/- bond and one surety, with redeposit by February 20, 2026. However, the prayer for permission to travel abroad was dismissed without reasons. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present Criminal Revision Case before the High Court.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 13.11.2025, passed by the Special Judge for Economic Offences Cases, Hyderabad, which partially allowed the release of the petitioner's passport for renewal but dismissed the prayer for permission to travel abroad without assigning reasons, is sustainable in law? The petitioner argued that the trial court's dismissal of the prayer to travel abroad without any reasons was arbitrary and unsustainable. The respondent, through its counsel, contended that the petitioner should have challenged the original bail order dated 10.07.2019, which imposed the condition of passport deposit, instead of filing a subsequent application for release and travel permission. The respondent argued that the current application was an attempt to circumvent the original bail conditions.