Sunny Jain vs. Directorate General Of GST Intelligence

Facts

The petitioner, Sunny Jain, sought modification of bail conditions imposed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM) on August 26, 2020. The original condition required the petitioner to seek permission from the CMM each time he intended to travel abroad. The petitioner had travelled abroad six times since being granted bail and had not misused his liberty. The investigation by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence had commenced in 2020, but no complaint had been filed by the department to date. The present petition was filed before the Delhi High Court challenging the aforementioned bail condition.

Held

The Court held that there was merit in the present petition to modify the bail conditions. The reasoning was based on two primary factors: the petitioner's unblemished record of travel abroad on six occasions without any misuse of liberty, and the fact that the investigation had been ongoing since 2020 without the filing of any complaint by the department. The Court found these circumstances sufficient to warrant a modification of the stringent condition. The ratio decidendi is that if an accused on bail has not misused their liberty and the investigation is protracted without a charge sheet, a restrictive bail condition requiring prior permission for foreign travel can be relaxed. The operative direction was to modify the order dated August 26, 2020, to the extent that the petitioner shall now inform the concerned Trial Court by filing his itinerary each time he leaves the country, instead of seeking prior permission. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the condition imposed by the learned CMM requiring the petitioner to seek prior permission for each travel abroad is justified, considering the petitioner has not misused his liberty and no complaint has been filed by the respondent despite a prolonged investigation? (Question of law and fact) The petitioner argued that the condition was unduly restrictive, especially given his compliance with bail terms and the lack of progress in the investigation. He contended that he had travelled abroad six times without any misuse of liberty, demonstrating his reliability. The petitioner implicitly argued that the condition was disproportionate to the perceived risk. The respondent, Directorate General of GST Intelligence, did not record any specific arguments against the modification of the bail condition in the judgment. The judgment does not record any contentions raised by the respondent.