Sri Pritam Sovasaria vs. The Union Of INDIA And Ors

Held

The Court found merit in the petitioner's contention regarding the restrictive bail condition. It held that the condition preventing the petitioner from leaving the territorial jurisdiction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup(M), Guwahati, without prior written permission, was indeed a handicap for a businessman who requires travel for his profession. Consequently, the Court modified and cancelled this specific condition. The other bail conditions were reiterated, including the requirement to regularly attend the trial court, cooperate with the court for early disposal of the trial, not to induce or threaten any person acquainted with the facts of the case, and not to commit any similar offence in the future. The Court also cautioned that violation of these conditions could lead to cancellation of bail. No other issues were expressly left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, Sri Pritam Sovasaria, proprietor of M/s PS Enterprise, sought modification of bail conditions imposed by the Gauhati High Court. He was granted bail on 08.05.2025 in connection with DGGI Case No. DGGI/INT/INTL/34/2025, which is at the trial stage. One of the conditions stipulated that the petitioner shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup(M), Guwahati, without prior written permission. The petitioner, a businessman requiring travel for his business, argued that this condition handicapped him and sought its modification. The Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence (DGGI) was represented by the respondent.

Key Issues

1. Whether the condition imposed on the petitioner, restricting him from leaving the territorial jurisdiction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup(M), Guwahati, without prior written permission, should be modified or cancelled, considering his business requirements? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner contended that as a businessman, he needs to travel to various places, sometimes at short notice, and the existing bail condition significantly hampers his ability to conduct his business. He sought modification of this specific condition while affirming his commitment to abide by all other bail conditions and any new ones imposed by the court. Revenue's Argument: The Standing Counsel for CGST submitted that since a final complaint has been submitted before the learned Trial Court, the applicant could approach the said court. No specific argument was recorded against the modification of the travel restriction.