The Bombay High Court has reaffirmed that the fundamental right to travel abroad under Article 21 cannot be arbitrarily restricted merely because an accused faces serious economic allegations. The judgment underscores that mere gravity of offence, without concrete evidence of flight risk or non-compliance with bail conditions, is insufficient to deny liberty. This ruling reinforces the principle that personal liberty, including international travel, is protected unless strictly justified by law and facts.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Daulat Samirmal Mehta, a 68-year-old businessman and Managing Director of multiple companies, was arrested in connection with alleged fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC) worth Rs. 399.92 crores under Section 132(1)(b) and (c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, through his companies, issued bogus invoices without actual supply of goods or services, causing substantial loss to the public exchequer.
Procedural History
- 2021: Petitioner granted bail by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No. 471/2021, with direction to deposit his passport.
- 2024: Petitioner applied for return of passport and permission to travel abroad; rejected by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate.
- January 2025: Bombay High Court quashed the rejection, directed petitioner to seek trial court’s permission before travel, and file an undertaking.
- May 2025: Petitioner renewed application for travel to UK, Dubai, and USA; again rejected by the Magistrate.
- May 2025: Sanction for prosecution granted and formal complaint filed before the Trial Court.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought permission to travel abroad for business expansion (London, Paris, Italy, Berlin) and a family vacation to Bali, asserting his deep societal roots, compliance with bail conditions, and absence of any prior attempt to evade justice.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the right to travel abroad under Article 21 can be denied solely on the basis of the gravity of alleged economic offences and pending penalties against corporate entities, without any material showing the accused is a flight risk.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the penalty of Rs. 1 lakh imposed on him personally was minimal compared to the Rs. 400 crore penalties levied on corporate entities, over which he had no direct liability. He emphasized his consistent compliance with bail conditions since 2021, absence of any attempt to abscond, and the constitutional protection of personal liberty. Reliance was placed on Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D. Ramarathnam and Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India to assert that the right to travel is intrinsic to personal liberty and cannot be curtailed without fair procedure.
For the Respondent
The State contended that the scale of alleged fraud - Rs. 399.92 crores - justified stringent restrictions. It argued that the petitioner, as Managing Director of the implicated companies, had a vested interest in evading liability, especially since pre-deposits for appeal against penalties had not been made. The prosecution expressed apprehension that permitting travel would enable the petitioner to flee and frustrate the pending criminal prosecution.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the constitutional framework governing personal liberty and the limits of judicial discretion in restricting travel during pendency of trial. It held that while courts may impose reasonable conditions to ensure the accused’s presence, such restrictions must be grounded in conduct, not conjecture.
"The personal liberty can be deprived only according to the procedure established by law. In the absence of any law regulating or depriving a person of such right, denial of the passport or withdrawal of the passport, already issued, would infringe Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India."
The Court distinguished between liability of the accused personally and liability of corporate entities. It noted that the penalties imposed on companies could be recovered through statutory mechanisms under the GST Act, and could not be used as leverage to deny an individual’s fundamental right. The Court emphasized that the prosecution had not adduced any evidence of the petitioner’s past non-compliance, attempts to conceal assets, or prior flight risk.
It further held that the mere pendency of a serious charge, without more, cannot override the constitutional guarantee of liberty. The Court cited Satish Chandra Verma v. Union of India to affirm that the right to travel abroad extends to private life, including family and personal relationships.
The Court rejected the prosecution’s argument that the petitioner’s business interests justified restriction, noting that legitimate commercial travel is not inherently suspect. It stressed that the burden lies on the State to demonstrate a real and imminent risk of evasion - not a speculative one.
The Verdict
The petitioner won. The Bombay High Court held that the right to travel abroad under Article 21 cannot be denied solely on the basis of the gravity of alleged economic offences or penalties imposed on corporate entities. The Court permitted travel subject to specific conditions, including a security deposit, detailed itinerary disclosure, and reporting obligations.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Personal Liability Must Be Distinct from Corporate Liability
- Practitioners must argue that penalties imposed on companies cannot be conflated with personal culpability unless the accused is individually adjudged liable.
- Courts cannot use corporate financial liabilities as proxy for personal flight risk.
- In GST and tax fraud cases, recovery mechanisms exist under the Act; these must be exhausted before restricting liberty.
Flight Risk Must Be Proven, Not Presumed
- A blanket denial of travel based on the nature of the offence is unconstitutional.
- Courts must examine conduct: compliance with bail, past appearances, asset declarations, and ties to India.
- Absence of prior violations or attempts to evade process negates speculative apprehensions.
Travel Conditions Must Be Tailored, Not Prohibitive
- Security deposits, itinerary disclosures, and affidavit requirements are permissible conditions.
- Blanket bans on international travel violate proportionality under Article 21.
- Practitioners should seek structured, time-bound permissions rather than absolute bans.
