A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The judgment examines the constitutional and procedural limits on judicial discretion while imposing conditions of bail, particularly where such conditions interfere with the fundamental right to travel abroad. The appeal arose from an order of the Bombay High Court refusing to relax interim bail conditions to allow the appellant, an Indian citizen and long-term US resident, to travel abroad for revalidation of his Green Card. The appellant was facing criminal proceedings arising from allegations of forgery under the Indian Penal Code, 1860, based on a private complaint filed in 2014.

The Supreme Court undertook a proportionality analysis of bail conditions imposed under Sections 437(3) and 439(1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It emphasized that while courts possess wide discretion to impose conditions “in the interest of justice,” such discretion is not unbridled and must remain tethered to the objectives of securing presence of the accused, preventing misuse of liberty, and ensuring fair trial.

The Court recognized the appellant’s consistent travel history between India and the United States even after registration of the FIR, the absence of flight risk, and the severe civil consequences that would ensue if travel were denied. The decision reinforces that bail conditions must not be so onerous or disproportionate as to render personal liberty illusory. The ruling reaffirms bail jurisprudence as a constitutional safeguard rather than a punitive instrument, harmonizing criminal procedure with human dignity and livelihood considerations.

Keywords: Bail conditions, Right to travel abroad, Proportionality, Personal liberty, Criminal procedure

B) CASE DETAILS

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The judgment arises at the intersection of criminal procedure and constitutional liberty, particularly the judicial management of bail conditions impacting transnational mobility. The dispute originated from a private complaint filed in January 2014 alleging forgery of a Power of Attorney dated 19 December 2011. Based on judicial directions under Section 156(3) CrPC, an FIR was registered in April 2014 invoking multiple forgery-related provisions of the IPC.

Despite the pendency of proceedings, the appellant, a Green Card holder residing in the United States since 1985, continued to travel between India and the US on multiple occasions. His arrest occurred only in February 2020 pursuant to a Look-Out Circular. Temporary bail was granted by the Bombay High Court in May 2020 but subject to restrictive conditions, including surrender of passport and prohibition on leaving jurisdiction.

The appellant sought relaxation of these conditions to comply with US immigration requirements, failing which his lawful permanent resident status would lapse. The High Court refused modification solely on the basis of pendency of an FIR. The Supreme Court was therefore called upon to evaluate whether denial of permission to travel amounted to disproportionate curtailment of liberty.

The case presents a nuanced question concerning how far bail conditions may intrude upon livelihood, dignity, and international movement, without undermining the administration of criminal justice. It situates bail not as a matter of discretion alone but as an exercise constrained by constitutional morality.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The appellant is an Indian citizen holding a Green Card and residing in the United States since 1985. In January 2014, a private complaint was filed by a third party alleging that the appellant had forged the signature of his brother on a Power of Attorney dated 19 December 2011. Acting under Section 156(3) CrPC, the JMFC directed police investigation, resulting in registration of an FIR on 22 April 2014 for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 469, 470, 471 and 474 IPC.

Between 2015 and January 2020, the appellant visited India on sixteen occasions, details of which were placed on record before the Supreme Court. In February 2018, anticipatory bail was sought by the appellant and co-accused. While anticipatory bail was granted to the co-accused, the appellant’s protection lapsed due to withdrawal of application.

On 21 February 2020, the appellant was arrested at Mumbai airport pursuant to a Look-Out Circular. His bail application was rejected by the Sessions Court but temporary bail was granted by the Bombay High Court on 19 May 2020 for eight weeks with stringent conditions. The appellant complied with bail terms and subsequently sought permission to travel to the US for revalidation of his Green Card under US immigration law.

Despite repeated praecipes and even directions from the Supreme Court for early hearing, the High Court declined to relax the conditions. The refusal was premised primarily on the existence of an FIR. This order was challenged before the Supreme Court, leading to the present appeal.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether a pending FIR by itself can justify denial of permission to travel abroad while on bail?
ii. Whether conditions imposed under Sections 437(3) and 439 CrPC must satisfy the test of proportionality?
iii. Whether denial of travel permission amounts to infringement of personal liberty under Article 21?

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for the appellant submitted that the appellant had been a lawful resident of the United States since 1985 and held a valid Green Card requiring periodic revalidation. It was argued that denial of travel would result in irreversible civil consequences, including loss of livelihood.

It was contended that the appellant had never absconded and had consistently returned to India despite ongoing litigation. Reliance was placed on his extensive travel history post-FIR registration to negate any apprehension of flight risk. The counsel emphasized that bail conditions cannot operate as indirect punishment and must align with the object of ensuring trial attendance.

The appellant also argued that the High Court’s reasoning ignored binding precedent mandating restraint and proportionality while imposing bail conditions. The refusal was characterized as arbitrary and contrary to settled bail jurisprudence.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for the State submitted that the appellant’s conduct was questionable, alleging non-compliance with bail terms. It was argued that permitting travel abroad would jeopardize the trial and there was no assurance of return.

The State emphasized that criminal proceedings were at an active stage and public interest demanded strict enforcement. The pendency of serious forgery charges was cited as justification for continued travel restrictions.

H) JUDGEMENT 

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order of the Bombay High Court. The Court held that the mere existence of an FIR cannot, in isolation, justify denial of permission to travel abroad.

Interpreting Sections 437(3) and 439 CrPC, the Court reaffirmed that although courts may impose “any condition” in the interest of justice, such discretion is not absolute. Bail conditions must serve legitimate purposes such as securing presence, preventing tampering with evidence, or ensuring fair trial.

The Court conducted a fact-specific evaluation, noting the appellant’s consistent return to India, long-standing residence abroad, and absence of any material suggesting evasion of justice. It rejected the High Court’s finding that the appellant lacked contact with India, terming it contrary to record.

Emphasizing human dignity and constitutional safeguards, the Court held that liberty cannot be rendered illusory by disproportionate conditions. The appellant was permitted to travel to the US for eight weeks subject to furnishing an undertaking to return and comply with trial requirements.

a) RATIO DECIDENDI

The ratio decidendi of the judgment lies in the principle that bail conditions must bear a reasonable and proportional nexus to the object sought to be achieved. The phrase “any condition” under Sections 437(3) and 439 CrPC cannot be interpreted to authorize arbitrary or excessive restrictions.

The Court held that the right to travel abroad forms an intrinsic component of personal liberty under Article 21. Curtailment of this right, even through judicial orders, must satisfy proportionality and necessity. Where the accused demonstrates bona fides and absence of flight risk, denial of travel solely due to pendency of criminal proceedings is unjustified.

The ruling clarifies that bail jurisprudence must be guided by constitutional values rather than punitive instincts.

b) OBITER DICTA

The Court observed that courts must remain conscious of the collateral civil consequences of criminal process. Bail conditions impacting livelihood, immigration status, or family life require heightened judicial sensitivity.

It further noted that criminal law should not be weaponized in long-standing private disputes, especially where documentary evidence predominates and custodial interrogation is unnecessary.

c) GUIDELINES

i. Bail conditions must be proportionate to the risk sought to be mitigated.
ii. Travel restrictions must be justified by demonstrable flight risk.
iii. Courts must consider civil and immigration consequences while imposing conditions.
iv. Prior conduct and compliance history of the accused must guide discretion.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The judgment strengthens constitutional bail jurisprudence by reinforcing proportionality as its governing principle. It prevents criminal procedure from degenerating into a mechanism of indirect punishment. The decision aligns Indian bail law with international human rights standards, particularly regarding freedom of movement and dignity.

By harmonizing procedural discretion with substantive liberty, the ruling provides valuable guidance to trial courts, High Courts, and practitioners. It reiterates that liberty is the rule and restriction the exception, even at the pre-trial stage.

J) REFERENCES

a) Important Cases Referred

1. Kunal Kumar Tiwari v. State of Bihar, (2018) 16 SCC 74
2. Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, [2018] 1 SCR 882
3. Sumit Mehta v. State (NCT of Delhi), [2013] 10 SCR 125

b) Important Statutes Referred

1. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
2. Indian Penal Code, 1860