Amit Bothra vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court allowed both petitions, relaxing the condition that required the petitioners to submit their passports and not leave India without prior permission. The Court's reasoning was primarily based on the fact that a co-accused, Nitesh Wadhwani, involved in the same crime (Crime No.23/2020), had already been permitted to travel abroad by the Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.1140/2023. The Court found that another co-accused, Kishore Wadhwani, in the same crime number, had also had similar bail conditions relaxed by a coordinate bench of the High Court, citing the Supreme Court's decision regarding Nitesh Wadhwani. Therefore, the Court saw no reason to treat the present petitioners differently from these co-accused. The ratio decidendi is that if co-accused in the same criminal matter have been granted permission to travel abroad under similar circumstances, then other similarly situated co-accused should also be granted such relief to maintain parity. The operative direction was to relax condition No.22(v) of the bail order dated July 27, 2020, allowing the petitioners to travel abroad.

Facts

The petitioners, Amit Bothra and Ashok Kumar Daga, filed petitions under Section 439(1)(B) read with Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. seeking relaxation of a bail condition imposed by the High Court on July 27, 2020. The original bail order required them to submit their passports and not leave India without prior permission. The petitioners intended to travel to Dubai and Hong Kong for business purposes. An FIR was lodged against them under Section 132(1)(a)(i) of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and Sections 409, 467, 471, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The respondent opposed the relaxation, citing huge tax evasion of Rs. 400 Crores and the fact that adjudication was not complete and no complaint had been filed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the condition imposed on the petitioners to submit their passports and not leave India without prior permission, imposed while granting bail in M.Cr.C. Nos.21628/2020 and 21618/2020, should be relaxed to allow them to travel abroad for business purposes, considering the pendency of adjudication and the lack of a filed complaint under the GST Act and IPC. Petitioner's argument: The petitioners argued that a co-accused, Nitesh Wadhwani, involved in the same crime number (Crime No.23/2020), had already been allowed to travel abroad, citing a Supreme Court decision in Criminal Appeal No.1140/2023. They also relied on a coordinate bench's decision in Kishore Wadhwani Vs. Union of India (M.Cr.C. No.8864/2023) which relaxed similar bail conditions based on the Supreme Court's order concerning Nitesh Wadhwani. Respondent's argument: The respondent/Union of India opposed the prayer, submitting that the petitioners were involved in huge tax evasion amounting to Rs.400 Crores. They argued that since adjudication was not over and a complaint had not yet been filed, the applications should not be allowed. The respondent relied on a Division Bench decision of the High Court in Ambrish Sharma Vs. Union of India (M.Cr.C. No.34239/2020), which considered the effect of Section 6(2)(f) of the Passport Act, 1967.