Aniket Sovasaria vs. The Union Of INDIA And 2 Ors.

Facts

The petitioner, Aniket Sovasaria, is facing prosecution in DGGI Case No. DGGI/INT/INTL/34/2025, which is at the trial stage. He had previously been granted bail by the Gauhati High Court on May 8, 2025, with several conditions. One of these conditions (condition 'a') stipulated that he shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup(M), Guwahati, without prior written permission. The petitioner, a businessman who needs to travel for his work, sought modification of this condition, arguing it handicapped him. He assured the court he would abide by all other conditions.

Held

The Court found merit in the petitioner's submission that the condition restricting his movement was hindering his business activities. Consequently, the Court decided to modify and delete the specific condition (a) that prohibited him from leaving the territorial jurisdiction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup(M), Guwahati, without prior written permission. The Court re-stated the remaining bail conditions, which included regularly attending the trial court, cooperating for early disposal of the trial, not inducing, threatening, or promising any person acquainted with the facts of the case to dissuade them from disclosing facts to the court, and not committing any similar offence in the future. The Court emphasized that violation of these conditions could lead to cancellation of bail. The interlocutory application was allowed and disposed of.

Key Issues

1. Whether the condition restricting the petitioner from leaving the territorial jurisdiction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup(M), Guwahati, without prior written permission, should be modified or deleted, considering the petitioner's business needs and requirement to travel at short notice. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the condition imposing territorial jurisdiction restrictions significantly hampered his ability to conduct his business, which necessitates travel to various places, often on short notice. He sought a modification to allow for greater travel flexibility. Revenue/State's contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments or contentions from the respondent (Union of India and others, represented by the Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax, Intelligence Guwahati Zonal Unit) regarding the modification of the bail condition. The court proceeded to consider the petitioner's submissions.