High CourtsSingle Bench

Kritika Malhotra vs Senior Intelligence Officer

Madras High Court · Decided on 23 January 2026 · Citation: (2026) 01 MAD CK 1820

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sunder Mohan, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Customs Act 1962 — Section 132, 135
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Revision Case No. 74 Of 2026, Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 913 Of 2026
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

15 paragraphs · 491 words

Sunder Mohan, J

1.

The revision challenges the dismissal of the petitioner’s application seeking permission to travel abroad.

2.

It is the case of the respondent that the petitioner was arrested on 11.02.2025 by the respondent for the offences under Sections 132 and 135 of the Customs Act 1962, for misdeclaration.

3.

The petitioner had applied for bail, and this Court in Crl.O.P.No.7639 of 2025 had released the petitioner on bail on 25.03.2025 on various conditions. One of the conditions was that the petitioner shall not leave India without obtaining permission from the trial Court. The petitioner, therefore, sought permission from the trial Court, which was denied by the impugned order on the ground that the investigation is still pending and the respondent is objecting to the petitioner’s travel, as the petitioner may abscond.

4.

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that though the case was registered in the month of February 2025, the respondent had not filed any complaint so far; that only adjudication proceedings are pending; and that since this Court had permitted the petitioner to seek permission from the trial Court, the petitioner had sought permission, and the learned Magistrate ought to have granted permission.

5.

The learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent, on instructions, would submit that if the petitioner is allowed to travel abroad, she may abscond; and that the complaint is yet to be filed.

6.

It is seen that though the alleged offence took place in the month of February 2025, the respondent have not yet filed the complaint before the jurisdictional magistrate. The petitioner’s right to travel abroad cannot be curtailed indefinitely. The petitioner has also filed an affidavit giving the details of her itinerary.

7.

The petitioner’s presence has to be ensured for the purpose of the adjudication proceedings and for the trial. Hence, this Court is inclined to permit the petitioner to travel abroad on the following conditions:

(a) The petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Only) to the credit of R.R.No.06 of 2025 on the file of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (E.O.1) Court, Egmore, Chennai;

(b) The petitioner shall execute a bond for Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Only) with two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (E.O.1) Court, Egmore, Chennai;

(c) On satisfaction of the above conditions, the petitioner shall be permitted to travel abroad for the period between 28.01.2026 and 10.03.2026;

(d) The petitioner shall return to India on or before 10.03.2026 and report before the learned Magistrate on her return;

(e) The petitioner is entitled to the refund of the said sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Only) on her return from abroad;

8.

The Look Out Circular issued on the request of the respondent shall be suspended during the said period. The order shall be communicated to the immigration authorities.

9.

List the case for recording compliance on 27.03.2026.