Case Law Details
Gorav Gupta VS Directorate General of GST Intelligence (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court addressed a petition filed by Gorav Gupta seeking modification of travel restrictions imposed as a condition of his anticipatory bail. Initially, the bail order in 2022 mandated the surrender of his passport and prohibited overseas travel without prior permission. This condition was subsequently modified, requiring Gupta to obtain permission from the trial court, and later, from the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM) where the complaint was to be filed. The crux of Gupta’s petition rested on the fact that the Show Cause Notice (SCN) issued under the CGST Act had been adjudicated, and the resulting order did not recommend or initiate any criminal prosecution against him. Given the absence of an intended complaint before the CMM, Gupta argued that the travel restrictions were no longer justified and infringed upon his fundamental right to freedom of movement. He sought either a complete removal of the travel restrictions or a modification that would allow him to travel without prior court permission.
The Directorate General of GST Intelligence, represented by Senior Standing Counsel Harpreet Singh, acknowledged the adjudication of the SCN. However, they indicated that an application for filing a complaint against Gupta was pending within the department. While not opposing a modification of the travel restrictions, they suggested that Gupta be required to inform the department of his travel plans. After considering the submissions, the High Court modified the condition relating to overseas travel. Instead of requiring prior permission from the CMM or trial court, the court directed Gupta to intimate the department about his travel plans, along with his contact number and address where he intended to reside. This modification reflects a shift from stringent court-mandated permissions to a system of departmental notification, acknowledging the completion of the adjudication process and the absence of an immediate criminal prosecution. The court disposed of the petition, effectively altering the bail condition to facilitate Gupta’s travel while ensuring the department remained informed of his movements.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF DELHI HIGH COURT
CRL.M.A. 1142/2025 (Exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The Application is disposed of.
CRL.M.C. 213/2025
3. The present Petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed on behalf of the Petitioner seeking modification of the condition in the Bail Order dated 07.07.2022 passed by the learned Trial Court vide which the Petitioner has been admitted to Anticipatory Bail.
4. It is submitted that while granting the Anticipatory Bail to the Petitioner vide Order dated 07.07.2022, the condition was imposed that he shall surrender his Passport before the Investigating Officer/Apprehending Authority and under no circumstances leave India without prior permission of the Investigating Officer/Appending Authority. However, the said condition was modified by this Court vide Order dated 20.12.2023 and the Petitioner was directed to seek prior permission of the Trial Court before travelling aboard.
5. The Petitioner moved the Petition bearing No. CRL.M.C. 9400/2023 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking modification of this bail condition to seek prior permission of the Trial Court before traveling abroad. This Court vide Order dated 15.04.2024 modified the said Bail condition to the extent that instead of obtaining the prior permission of the Trial Court as mentioned in condition (i) of Paragraph-5 of the Bail Order, prior permission of the concerned learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi where the complaint is to be filed, shall be obtained.
6. It is submitted that the Show Cause Notice was issued under Sections 122(3)/122(1A) of the CGST Act, 2017 to the Petitioner, which has now been finally adjudicated vide Order dated 27.08.2024 by the Joint Commissioner, CGST, Delhi wherein no criminal prosecution has been recommended or initiated against the Petitioner.
7. It is further submitted that since there is no Complaint intended to be filed before the learned CJM, the conditions imposed in the Anticipatory Bail Order dated 07.07.2022, including limitation on the Petitioner’s movement or travel abroad only with the permission of learned CJM or to vacate the Anticipatory Bail Order dated 07.07.2022, enabling the Petitioner to exercise his Fundamental Right of freedom of movement.
8. Issue notice.
9. Harpreet Singh, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing on advance Notice, accepts Notice on behalf of the Respondent and submits that though the Application has already been preferred in the Department for filing of the Complaint against the Petitioner the condition may be modified and Petitioner may be directed to intimate the Department every time when he travels abroad.
10. Submissions heard.
11. In view of the submissions made, the condition imposed vide Order dated 20.12.2023 is modified to the extent that instead of seeking prior permission of the learned CJM/Trial Court, the Petitioner shall intimate the Department/Respondent about his travel and shall furnish his contact number and address where he intends to reside.
12. Accordingly, the present Petition is disposed of.
Author Bio
