Mehul Sukumaran vs Central Bureau Of Investigation

Virender Singh, J

By way of the present petition, filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’), petitioner-Mehul Sukumaran has sought the permission of this Court to allow him to travel to Singapore from 14th June, 2025 to 22nd June, 2025. Permission has also been sought to get his passport renewed, notwithstanding the pendency of proceedings in case FIR No. RC0962018A0003, dated 21st June, 2018, with a direction to the respondent-CBI to release his passport.

Brief facts, leading to the filing of the present petition, are as under:

2.1. The petitioner is facing trial in case FIR No. RC0962018A0003, dated 21st June, 2018, registered under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) and Sections 7, 12, 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, with CBI, ACB, Shimla, H.P.

2.2. The petitioner, when apprehending his arrest, in the aforesaid case, had approached this Court, by way of CrMP (M) No. 1172 of 2018, titled as Mehul Sukumaan versus CBI, seeking anticipatory bail, under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘CrPC’). The said petition was allowed by this Court, vide order dated 13th November, 2018. In the said order, certain conditions were imposed, by the Court, which are reproduced, as under:

“i) That he shall not leave India without the prior permission of the Court.

ii) That he shall not leave the territorial limits of the State of Himachal Pradesh, without intimating the Investigating Officer.

iii) That he shall deposit his passports, if any, with the Investigating Officer.

iv) That in case of violation of any of the conditions, it is open for the respondent to move an application for cancellation of bail.”

2.3. In pursuance of the said directions, the petitioner has deposited his passport with the CBI.

2.4. It is the further case of the petitioner that he has also filed a petition, under Section 482 CrPC, seeking quashment of the abovesaid FIR, which has been registered as CrMMO No. 120 of 2022. The said petition is pending adjudication before this Court and in the said petition, the further proceedings in the case, in which, the petitioner has been named as accused, have been ordered to be stayed, by this Court, vide order, dated 4th March, 2022, passed in CrMP No. 440 of 2022.

2.5. As per the further case of the petitioner, he is seeking permission of this Court to get his passport renewed and visit Singapore, with effect from 14th June, 2025 to 22nd June, 2025, in order to attend Super AI Conference to be held from 16th June, 2025 to 22nd June, 2025. In this regard, he has annexed the event details and agenda of the said conference, as Annexure P-3.

2.6. The petitioner has also given the undertaking that he will return back to the country promptly, after attending the Super AI Conference.

2.7. The petitioner has also sought the release of his passport, for getting the same renewed, which is due to expire on 9th June, 2025, as it is a pre-condition for international travel and necessary for visa processing for Singapore. The copy of the passport has also been annexed with the petition as Annexure P-4.

2.8. According to the petitioner, he has earlier approached this Court by way of CrMMO No. 1077 of 2024, seeking permission to travel Dubai to attend the Global AI Show, with effect from 8th December, 2024 to 15th December, 2024, which permission was granted to him, by this Court, vide judgment, dated 4th December, 2024.

2.9. It is the stand of the petitioner that he has complied with all the conditions and directions, contained in the order of this Court, passed on 4th December, 2024 (supra).

On the basis of the above facts, indulgence of this Court has been sought, permitting the petitioner to travel to Singapore with effect from 14th  June, 2025 to 22nd June, 2025. In addition to this, a direction has also been sought to be issued to the respondent-CBI, to release his passport, so that the same could be get renewed. The petition is duly supported by the affidavit of the petitioner.

When put to notice, the respondent-CBI has filed the reply, wherein, the factual position has not been disputed. It has also been admitted that the passport of the petitioner is with the respondent-CBI.

The prayer, so made, in the petition, has been opposed mainly on the ground that by way of the present petition, the petitioner intends to avail a chance to flee from the law of land and also to avoid facing trial, pending against him, before the learned trial Court. It has also been apprehended that there is every likelihood that the petitioner will jump the bail conditions, if permitted to travel abroad.

In addition to this, a plea has also been taken that the petitioner could attend the said conference, by way of virtual mode.

On the basis of all these submissions/ apprehensions, a prayer has been made to dismiss the petition.

The petitioner, alongwith the petition, has annexed the documents, including the agenda of the conference.

In this case, the proceedings before the learned trial Court have been stayed, by this Court, in CrMMO No. 120 of 2022, i.e. the petition, filed by the petitioner, under Section 482 CrPC, for quashing the FIR, registered against him.

In Maneka Gandhi versus Union of India and another, reported in (1978) 1 Supreme Court Cases 248, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that no person can be deprived of his right to go abroad, unless, there is a law enabling the State prescribing the procedure for so depriving him. Relevant portion of para-5 of the said judgment, reads as under:

“5. ……...Thus, no person can be deprived of his right to go abroad unless there is a law made by the State prescribing the procedure for so depriving him and the deprivation is effected strictly in accordance with such procedure. It was for this reason, in order to comply with the requirement of Article 21, that Parliament enacted the Passports Act, 1967 for regulating the right to go abroad. It is clear from the provisions of the Passports Act, 1967 that it lays down the circumstances under which a passport may be issued or refused or cancelled or impounded and also prescribes a procedure for doing so, but the question is whether that is sufficient enough or must the procedure comply with any particular requirements? Obviously, the procedure cannot be arbitrary, unfair or unreasonable. This indeed was conceded by the learned Attorney General who with his usual candour frankly stated that it was not possible for him to contend that any procedure howsoever arbitrary, oppressive or unjust may be prescribed by the law. …..”

The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Sumit Mehta versus State (NCT of Delhi), reported in (2013) 15 Supreme Court Cases 570, has held that the law presumes an accused to be innocent till his guilt is proved and he is entitled to all the fundamental rights, including the right to liberty. Relevant para 12 of the said judgment, is reproduced, as under:

“12. The law presumes an accused to be innocent till his guilt is proved. As a presumable innocent person, he is entitled to all the fundamental rights including the right to liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.”

Right to travel abroad has been held to be basic human right, by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Satish Chandra Verma versus Union of India, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 2048. Relevant para-5 of the said judgment, is reproduced, as under:

“5. The right to travel abroad is an important basic human right for it nourishes independent and self-determining creative character of the individual, not only by extending his freedoms of action, but also by extending the scope of his experience. The right also extends to private life; marriage, family and friendship are humanities which can be rarely affected through refusal of freedom to go abroad and clearly show that this freedom is a genuine human right.”

If the facts and circumstances of the present case are seen in the light of the aforesaid decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, then, in the considered opinion of this Court, the petitioner is able to make out a case, in his favour.

It is pertinent to record herein that the petitioner was permitted to travel abroad in the month of December, 2024 with certain conditions. The said conditions have duly been complied with by the petitioner. As such, it cannot be said that in case, the petitioner is allowed to travel abroad, he will jump over the conditions, imposed by this Court.

Consequently, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is permitted to visit Singapore, with effect from 14th June, 2025 to 22nd June, 2025, and the CBI is directed to release the passport, against proper receipt, to the petitioner, forthwith, so that, he could get the same renewed, as per the law. However, this order shall be subject to the following conditions:

(i) That the petitioner shall furnish a personal bond, in the sum of ₹ 6,00,000/-, with two sureties of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, by giving an undertaking to return back to India, by 24th June, 2025;

(ii) That he shall also furnish an undertaking to the learned trial Court that he shall not visit any other place(s), except as mentioned in the present petition; and

(iii) That he shall re-deposit his passport, with CBI, on or before 26th June, 2025.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also disposed of accordingly.