9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Bail conditions allowing the respondent to visit Dubai. 2. Allegations of tampering with evidence and influencing witnesses. 3. Imposition and modification of bail conditions. Analysis: 1. The respondent, facing trial under Section 135 of the Customs Act, was granted pre-arrest bail with a condition not to leave India without court permission and to surrender his passport. The respondent sought permission to visit Dubai for business purposes, which was granted by the Sessions Judge. The Customs authorities challenged this decision, arguing that allowing the respondent to visit Dubai where the investigation was ongoing could lead to tampering with evidence. The respondent's counsel contended that the visit was essential for business dealings and offered to comply with security requirements. 2. The Court noted that conditions imposed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. can only be modified in exceptional circumstances with compelling reasons not available when the original order was passed. The respondent did not object to the travel restriction initially, and the ongoing investigation in Dubai raised concerns about tampering with evidence and influencing witnesses. The Sessions Judge's decision to permit the Dubai visit without considering these factors was deemed inappropriate, leading to the acceptance of the revision petition and the setting aside of the travel permission granted. 3. The judgment emphasized the seriousness of the offence and the potential risks associated with allowing the respondent to visit Dubai amidst an ongoing investigation. The Court highlighted the importance of upholding bail conditions to prevent interference with the legal process and ensure the integrity of evidence. Ultimately, the decision to revoke the travel permission was based on the need to safeguard the investigation and prevent any potential tampering or influence on witnesses, thereby upholding the principles of justice and legal procedure.
|
