Holding

Conditions imposed on bail must be proportionate and cannot be denied solely on the basis of an FIR; the appellant may travel abroad for eight weeks subject to a return undertaking.

Summary

The appellant, an Indian citizen and US Green Card holder, was charged in 2014 with forgery and related offences under the IPC and was arrested in 2020. The High Court granted him eight weeks of interim bail but refused to relax the conditions to allow travel to the United States, despite his frequent prior travel and the risk of losing his Green Card. The Supreme Court examined whether the FIR alone could justify denying the travel request and emphasized that bail conditions must be proportionate, balancing public interest with the accused's rights. Relying on precedents, the Court held that the High Court’s refusal was unjustified as the appellant had maintained strong ties to India and posed no flight risk. Consequently, the Court permitted the appellant to travel for eight weeks, subject to an undertaking to return and appear for hearings, and set aside the High Court’s order.

Issues considered

The scope of discretion under Sections 437(3) and 439(1)(a) of the CrPC to impose conditions on bail, particularly regarding travel abroad.
Whether the mere existence of an FIR under the IPC precludes the accused from being permitted to travel abroad while on bail.
The requirement of proportionality and balance between the right to personal liberty and the interest of justice in imposing bail conditions.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 156(3), s. 34, s. 340, s. 437, s. 439
Immigration and Nationality Act, 1952
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 420, s. 467, s. 468, s. 469, s. 470, s. 471, s. 474

Subjects

bailanticipatory bailconditions of bailright to travel abroadproportionalitySection 437 CrPCSection 439 CrPCIndian Penal Code offencesGreen CardCOVID-19 lockdowninterim bailmodification of bail conditions

Judgment

[2020] 11 S.C.R. 117 117

PARVEZ NOORDIN LOKHANDWALLA A
v.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 648 of 2020)
OCTOBER 01, 2020 B
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
INDIRA BANERJEE, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss.437, 439 – Bail –
Nature of conditions imposed – Right to travel abroad – FIR lodged
against appellant in 2014 alleging forgery – Appellant eventually C
arrested in 2020 – High Court granted conditional interim bail to
the appellant for eight weeks – However, declined to relax the
conditions imposed to permit him to visit the US – Held: Conditions
which a court imposes for the grant of bail have to balance the public
interest in the enforcement of criminal justice with the rights of the
D
accused – Conditions imposed must bear a proportional relationship
to the purpose of imposing such conditions – Appellant is an Indian
citizen and holds an Indian passport – A large amount of litigation is
pending between the appellant and the complainant – Appellant has
regularly travelled between the US and India on as many as sixteen
occasions between 2015 and 2020 – High Court’s view that he has no E
contact with India is contrary to the material on record – FIR lodged
against him should not in itself prevent him from travelling to the US,
where he is a resident since 1985, particularly when serious
consequences would ensue in terms of the invalidation of the Green
Card if he were not permitted to travel – Appellant permitted to travel
F
to the US for eight weeks subject to furnishing undertaking as
directed – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.420, 467, 468, 469, 470, 471 and
474.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The language of Section 437(3) of the CrPC G
which uses the expression “any condition… otherwise in the
interest of justice” has been construed in several decisions of
this court. Though the competent court is empowered to exercise
its discretion to impose “any condition” for the grant of bail under
Sections 437 (3) and 439 (1) (a) of the CrPC, the discretion of the
court has to be guided by the need to facilitate the administration H
117
118 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 11 S.C.R.

A of justice, secure the presence of the accused and ensure that
the liberty of the accused is not misused to impede the
investigation, overawe the witnesses or obstruct the course of
justice. [Para 14][127-C-D]
1.2 The private complaint which is the genesis of the present
B proceedings was instituted in January 2014. The gravamen of the
allegation is that the appellant has forged and fabricated the Power
of Attorney of 19 December 2011 of his brother. The co-accused
was granted bail by the Sessions Judge Thane on 16 April 2018.
This Court is called upon to decide only whether the appellant
should be permitted to travel to the US for eight weeks. In evaluating
C this issue, the Court must have regard to the nature of the allegations,
the conduct of the appellant and above all, the need to ensure that
he does not pose a risk of evading the prosecution. The appellant
has regularly travelled between the US and India on as many as
sixteen occasions between 2015 and 2020. He has maintained a close
D contact with India. The view of the High Court that he has no contact
with India is contrary to the material on record. The conditions which
a court imposes for the grant of bail – in this case temporary bail –
have to balance the public interest in the enforcement of criminal
justice with the rights of the accused. The human right to dignity
and the protection of constitutional safeguards should not become
E illusory by the imposition of conditions which are disproportionate
to the need to secure the presence of the accused, the proper course
of investigation and eventually to ensure a fair trial. The conditions
which are imposed by the court must bear a proportional relationship
to the purpose of imposing the conditions. The nature of the risk
F which is posed by the grant of permission as sought in this case
must be carefully evaluated in each case. As far as the furnishing of
sureties is concerned, it is stated, on instructions, that the directions
of the High Court have been complied with. In regard to the
surrender of the appellant, the Court has been apprised of the fact
that as a result of the lock down occasioned by the outbreak of Covid-
G 19, the High Court on the judicial side passed successive orders on
26 March 2020, 15 April 2020 and 15 June 2020 extending its interim
orders. In the meantime, to establish his bona fides, the appellant
states that he had moved the High Court in successive praecipes
for early hearing, while instituting an IA for modification of the
H conditions imposed on 19 May 2020 and, eventually, it was on the
PARVEZ NOORDIN LOKHANDWALLA v. STATE OF 119
MAHARASHTRA & ANR.

direction of this Court that the High Court passed the impugned A
order. [Paras 21, 23][133-F-H; 134-A-G]
1.3 There is no reason or justification to deny him the
permission which has been sought to travel to the US for eight weeks.
The appellant is an Indian citizen and holds an Indian passport. While
it is true that an FIR has been lodged against the appellant, that B
should not in itself prevent him from travelling to the US, where he
is a resident since 1985, particularly when it has been drawn to the
attention of the High Court and this Court that serious consequences
would ensue in terms of the invalidation of the Green Card if the
appellant were not permitted to travel. The record indicates the
large amount of litigation between the family of the appellant and the C
complainant. Notwithstanding or perhaps because of this, the
appellant has frequently travelled between the US and India even
after the filing of the complaint and the FIR. The application for
modification was incorrectly rejected by the High Court and the
appellant ought to have been allowed to travel to the US for a period D
of eight weeks. The appellant is permitted to do so, subject to his
furnishing an undertaking to this Court before the date of travel that
he will return to India after the expiry of a period of eight weeks and
that he shall be available on all dates of hearing before the court of
criminal jurisdiction, unless specifically exempted from personal
appearance. The undertaking shall be filed in this court before the E
appellant undertakes travel. Further directions issued. [Para
24][135-A-D]
Kunal Kumar Tiwari v. The State of Bihar (2018) 16 SCC
74; Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2018) 3
SCC 22 : [2018] 1 SCR 882; Sumit Mehta v. State (NCT F
of Delhi) (2013) 15 SCC 570 : [2013] 10 SCR 125;
Barun Chandra Thakur v. Ryan Augustine Pinto Decision
of Supreme Court dated 21.10.2019 in Criminal Appeal
No. 1618 of 2019; Ganpati Ramnath v State of Bihar
Decision of Supreme Court dated 04.05.2017 in Criminal G
Appeal Nos. 1187 of 2004; K. Mohammed v The State of
Kerala Decision of Supreme Court dated 02.03.2020 in
Criminal Appeal Nos. 547 of 2012; Tarun Trikha v State
of West Bengal Decision of Supreme Court dated
29.05.2015 in Special Leave to Appeal Crl. Nos. 4643 of
H
120 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 11 S.C.R.

A 2015; Pitam Pradhan v State of A P Decision of Supreme
Court dated 26.02.2014 in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl)
No(s). 9664 of 2013 – relied on.
Case Law Reference
(2018) 16 SCC 74 relied on Para 15
B
[2018] 1 SCR 882 relied on Para 16
[2013] 10 SCR 125 relied on Para 17
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
648 of 2020.
C
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.07.2020 of the High Court
of Judicature at Bombay in LD/VC/IA/258/2020 IN LD/VC/BA/24/
2020.
Subhash Jha, Manoj K. Mishra, Sachin Patil, Rahul Chitnis, Geo
Joseph, Advs. for the appearing parties.
D
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.
1. Leave granted.

E 2. This appeal arises from a judgment and order of a Single Judge
of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay1 dated 23 July 2020. The
High Court, by its order which is in appeal, declined to modify its earlier
order dated 19 May 2020 so as to permit the appellant to travel to the US
for a period of eight weeks from 25 July 2020 to 6 September 2020. The
appellant sought the leave of the High Court to do so since as a Green
F Card holder, it was mandatory for him to return to the US within a stipulated
period of his departure from that country, failing which the conditions for
revalidation of the Green Card would not be fulfilled. The High Court
declined to relax the conditions imposed by it for the grant of interim bail
on the ground that an FIR has been registered against the appellant.
G Though the period during which the appellant sought to travel abroad has
lapsed, the cause survives. The appeal raises interesting issues about
the interface between the fundamental right to travel abroad and its

1
H “High Court”
PARVEZ NOORDIN LOKHANDWALLA v. STATE OF 121
MAHARASHTRA & ANR. [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

curtailment under a judicial order as an incident to regulate conditions A
governing the grant of bail.
3. The genesis of the present case arises from a private complaint
which was filed in January 2014 by Mehraj Rajabali Merchant in the
court of the JMFC Thane alleging that the appellant has fabricated a
Power of Attorney dated 19 December 2011 by forging the signature of B
his brother, Shalin Lokhandawalla. On 10 April 2014, the JMFC passed
an order, by which he directed an investigation under Section 156(3) of
the Code of Criminal Procedure 19732 in terms of the following directions:
“1. The Kapurbavdi police station is directed to register the crime
and investigate into the matter. C
2. Further it is hereby directed to submit the report before the
court for taking action, if any, u/s.340 of Cr.P.C.”
4. A First Information Report was registered against the appellant
on 22 April 2014 in which the appellant is alleged to be involved in offences
punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 469, 470, 471 and 474 of the D
Indian Penal Code 18603 read with the provisions of Section 34.
5. The appellant and the co-accused, Arun Fatehpuria, had
preferred an application for grant of anticipatory bail before the Sessions
Court Thane, which granted interim protection from arrest to both the
accused on 17 February 2018. On 16 April 2018, the Sessions Court at E
Thane confirmed the interim order and granted anticipatory bail to the
co-accused, Arun Fatehpuria, primarily on the basis that the allegations
in the complaint depend largely on documentary material, rendering
custodial interrogation unnecessary. However, the interim order protecting
the appellant was cancelled because the counsel representing the appellant F
withdrew the application on his behalf.
6. The appellant is an Indian citizen and holds an Indian passport.
He holds a Green Card, enabling him to reside in the US. He has resided
in the US since 1985. However, between 10 March 2015 and 10 January
2020, the appellant visited India on sixteen occasions, details of which
G
have been filed on an affidavit dated 7 August 2020 in these proceedings.
A tabulated chart (Annexure P-3 to the affidavit) contains details of his
travel history, and is extracted below:

2
“CrPC”
3
“IPC” H
122 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 11 S.C.R.

A No. D ep arture D ate
10 /3/2 0 15 M u mb ai M um bai
1 9/0 3/2 0 15 M um bai
21 /4/2 0 15 M um bai
B
2 2/4 /20 1 5 M um bai
7/5 /20 1 5 M um bai
1 0/5 /20 1 5
21 /8/2 0 15 M um bai
C
2 4/8 /20 1 5 M um bai
3/2 /20 1 6
1 1/2 /20 1 6

D 14 /2/2 0 16
2 4/2 /20 1 6
24 /6/2 0 16 M um bai
2 8/7 /20 1 6 M um bai
E 1 0/2 /20 1 7
4/5 /20 1 7 M um bai
1 0/7 /20 1 7 M um bai
15 /7/2 0 17 M um bai
F
2 4/7 /20 1 7 M um bai
9/8 /20 1 7 M um bai
19 /10 /2 01 7 M um bai

G 3/1 1/2 0 17 M um bai
1 1/1 1/2 0 17
kn ow n )
2 6/2 /20 1 8 M um bai
1/6 /20 1 8 M um bai
H
PARVEZ NOORDIN LOKHANDWALLA v. STATE OF 123
MAHARASHTRA & ANR. [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

A
10/7/2018
known)
26/9/2018 Mumbai
26/10/2018 Mumbai
B
22/11/2018 Mumbai
14/12/2018 Mumbai
4/4/2019 Mumbai
22/5/2019 Mumbai C
10/1/2020 Mumbai

7. The appellant arrived in India on 10 January 2020. He was arrested
on 21 February 2020 at the point of departure in Mumbai in pursuance of
a look-out notice which appears to have been issued on the basis of the D
FIR dated 22 April 2014. An application for bail was filed before the
Sessions Court in the first week of March 2020 but was rejected on 4
May 2020. On 23 April 2020, the appellant filed an application for bail
before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay. The High Court, by its
order dated 19 May 2020, granted temporary bail to the appellant, subject
to the following conditions: E
“a) The applicant be released on temporary bail for a period of
eight weeks in C.R. No.I-156 of 2014 registered with
Kapurbavadi Police Station, Thane on his furnishing P.R.
Bond of Rs.25,000/- with one or more sureties to make up
the amount. F
b) Till the procedure for furnishing sureties is completed, the
applicant is permitted to furnish cash bail.
c) Before his actual release from jail, the Applicant is directed
to surrender his Passport and/or Green Card issued by the
United States of America with the Investigating Agency, if G
not earlier seized by it or other Government Authorities.
d) After his release from jail, the applicant is directed not to
leave jurisdiction of Thane Police Commissionerate without
prior permission of the trial Court.
H
124 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 11 S.C.R.

A e) Place the Application for regular bail before the regular
Court after normal functioning of the Court begins.”
8. On 10 June 2020, the appellant filed an IA before the High Court
seeking permission to visit the US for a period of eight weeks. The High
Court was hearing only urgent applications during the course of the lock
B down occasioned by the outbreak of Covid-19. The Registry of the High
Court informed him on 15 June 2020 that no urgency was found in the
praecipe for urgent listing. The appellant filed fresh praecipes for urgent
listing on 17 June 2020 and 19 June 2020. On 26 June 2020, a Single
Judge (Justice S. K. Shinde) expressed his inability to take up the IA for
relaxation of the conditions attached to the grant of interim bail since the
C order dated 19 May 2020 had been passed by Justice A. S. Gadkari.
The contention of the appellant, it may be noted, has been that under the
conditions prescribed by the US Immigration and Nationality Act 1952,
he has to return for a short period for revalidating the Green Card. Among
them are the following:
D “(C) An alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the
United States shall not be regarded as seeking an admission into
the United States for purposes of the immigration laws unless the
alien-
(i) has abandoned or relinquished that status,
E
(ii) has been absent from the United States for a continuous period
in excess of 180 days,
(iii) has engaged in illegal activity after having departed the United
States,
F (iv) has departed from the United States while under legal process
seeking removal of the alien from the United States, including
removal proceedings under this chapter and extradition
proceedings,
(v) has committed an offense identified in section 1182(a)(2) of
G this title, unless since such offense the alien has been granted
relief under section 1182(h) or 1229b(a) of this title, or is
attempting to enter at a time or place other than as designated
by immigration officers or has not been admitted to the United
States after inspection and authorization by an immigration
officer.”
H
PARVEZ NOORDIN LOKHANDWALLA v. STATE OF 125
MAHARASHTRA & ANR. [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

9. The High Court, by its order dated 26 June 2020, rejected the A
application for considering his prayer for relaxing the conditions attaching
to the grant of interim bail following which the appellant moved this Court4.
By an order dated 13 July 2020, this Court requested the High Court to
take up the IA filed by the appellant seeking permission to travel to the
US, at an early date. This Court, in its order dated 13 July 2020, noted
B
the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant in paragraph 2 of
its order and then issued the following directions:
“2. Mr Subhash Jha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner, submitted that in the event that the petitioner is unable
to arrive in the US by 29 July 2020, he will not be in a position to
retain his Green Card as he is required to return to the US within C
180 days of his departure and his status will then be that of an alien
seeking entry into the US.
3. Since the interim application which has been filed by the petitioner
is pending before the High Court, we request the High Court to
take it up at an early date having regard to the timeline which has D
been set out in the submissions which have been recorded above.
We clarify that since the interim application is still pending before
the High Court, we have not expressed any view on the merits of
the matter. The observations contained in the order declining to
entertain the praecipe shall not come in the way of the disposal of E
the interim application. The Special Leave Petition is accordingly
disposed of.
4. The Registry of the Bombay High Court may obtain, if required,
administrative directions of the Hon’ble Chief Justice for the
assignment of the interim application.” F
10. In pursuance of the order of this Court, the High Court heard
the IA and has declined to grant permission to the appellant to visit the
US for a period of eight weeks, by its order dated 23 July 2020.
11. Mr. Subhash Jha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant submits that: G
(i) The appellant is a resident of the US since 1985; holds a
Green Card since 2010 and has not violated any provision
of law in the US;

H
126 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 11 S.C.R.

A (ii) The appellant and the members of his family have been
involved in a long drawn out litigation against the complainant,
both of a civil and criminal nature;
(iii) In the private complaint that was instituted by the
complainant in January 2014, the co-accused was granted
B anticipatory bail by the Sessions Judge, Thane on the ground
that the complaint essentially turns upon documents;
(iv) Between 2015 and 2020, the appellant has visited India on
as many as sixteen occasions;
(v) The family of the appellant, which includes him, his brother
C Shalin and two sisters, jointly owns properties at Thane and
Panvel worth more than Rs 100 crores and the appellant is
the only member of the family who is looking after the
litigation;
(vi) Far from being a fugitive from justice, the appellant has
D consistently travelled to India and the mere filing of the private
complaint and the registration of an FIR should not preclude
him from travelling to the US, failing which he would incur
serious consequences of the invalidation of his Green Card;
(vii) While the court which grants bail under Section 439 of the
E Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 can impose conditions
which ensure the presence of the accused to face trial, the
conditions must balance the liberty of the accused and not
result in the arbitrary deprivation of the right to livelihood;
and
F (viii) The order of the JMFC dated 10 April 2014 has been passed
as a matter of routine course without application of mind
and has been misused by the police machinery to harass
and arrest the appellant at the behest of an adversary.
12. Mr Jha further submitted that the appellant would undertake
G to come to India on every hearing of the criminal cases before the
concerned courts and he has no intention to evade the process of law.
Mr. Jha has stated that in pursuance of the notice issued by this court, the
complainant has been served.
13. On the other hand, Mr. Sachin Patil, learned counsel appearing
H on behalf of the State of Maharashtra, who appeared in pursuance of
PARVEZ NOORDIN LOKHANDWALLA v. STATE OF 127
MAHARASHTRA & ANR. [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

the notice issued by this Court on 29 July 2020, submitted that the conduct A
of the appellant has been improper. Mr. Patil stated that, on the grant of
anticipatory bail by the Sessions Court in 2018, the appellant left for the
US, without seeking permission, though as a matter of fact, he returned
subsequently to India on several occasions until 2020, when he was
arrested. It was urged that the appellant has not complied with the conditions
B
on which he was granted interim bail for eight weeks and he ought to
have, but has not, surrendered after the period was over. Mr. Patil
submitted that since the appellant is facing a criminal trial, the Court
may expedite the course of the trial, but not permit him to leave for the
US at this stage; there being no guarantee of his return.
14. The language of Section 437(3) of the CrPC which uses the C
expression “any condition… otherwise in the interest of justice” has been
construed in several decisions of this court. Though the competent court
is empowered to exercise its discretion to impose “any condition” for the
grant of bail under Sections 437 (3) and 439 (1) (a) of the CrPC, the
discretion of the court has to be guided by the need to facilitate the D
administration of justice, secure the presence of the accused and ensure
that the liberty of the accused is not misused to impede the investigation,
overawe the witnesses or obstruct the course of justice. Several
decisions of this Court have dwelt on the nature of the conditions which
can legitimately be imposed both in the context of bail and anticipatory bail.
E
15. In Kunal Kumar Tiwari v The State of Bihar5, the appellant
who was alleged to have committed offences under Sections 498-A,
341, 323, 379 and 506, read with Section 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of
the Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 was denied anticipatory bail by the High
Court. However, the High Court directed that if the appellant was willing
to treat his wife with dignity and care but she refuses to live with him or F
both parties prefer to obtain a divorce by mutual consent, the court below
would release the appellant on provisional bail. The trial court was permitted
to confirm the provisional bail after one year and was directed to monitor
the relationship between the parties, who would appear before it every
three months. This Court, while holding that the conditions imposed by the G
High Court on grant of bail were onerous and arbitrary, observed:
“9. …Sub-clause (c) of Section 437(3) allows Courts to impose
such conditions in the interest of justice. We are aware that
palpably such wordings are capable of accepting broader meaning.
5
(2018) 16 SCC 74 H
128 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 11 S.C.R.

A But such conditions cannot be arbitrary, fanciful or extend beyond
the ends of the provision. The phrase ‘interest of justice’ as used
under the Sub-clause (c) of Section 437(3) means “good
administration of justice” or “advancing the trial process” and
inclusion of broader meaning should be shunned because of
purposive interpretation.
B
10. … from the perusal of the impugned order it is clear that the
court exceeded its jurisdiction in imposing such arbitrary
conditions. Some of the conditions imposed are highly onerous
and are absurd. Such onerous anticipatory bail conditions are alien
and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. The conditions imposed
C appear to have no nexus with the good administration of justice or
advancing the trial process, rather it is an over-zealous exercise in
utter disregard to the very purpose of the criminal justice system.
In view of the above, the impugned order passed by the High
Court is set aside and the interim protection granted to the Petitioner
D by this Court… is made absolute.”
16. In Dataram Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh6, this Court
observed that:
“7. ….The grant or refusal of bail is entirely within the discretion
of the judge hearing the matter and though that discretion is
E unfettered, it must be exercised judiciously and in a humane
manner and compassionately. Also, conditions for the grant of bail
ought not to be so strict as to be incapable of compliance, thereby
making the grant of bail illusory.”
17. In Sumit Mehta v. State (NCT of Delhi)7, in the context of
F conditions under Section 438 (2) of the CrPC, this Court observed that a
balance has to be struck between the rights of the accused and the
enforcement of the criminal justice system while imposing conditions on
the grant of bail:
“11. While exercising power Under Section 438 of the Code, the
G Court is duty bound to strike a balance between the individual’s
right to personal freedom and the right of investigation of the police.
For the same, while granting relief under Section 438(1), appropriate
conditions can be imposed Under Section 438(2) so as to ensure
6
(2018) 3 SCC 22
7
H (2013) 15 SCC 570
PARVEZ NOORDIN LOKHANDWALLA v. STATE OF 129
MAHARASHTRA & ANR. [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

an uninterrupted investigation. The object of putting such conditions A
should be to avoid the possibility of the person hampering the
investigation. Thus, any condition, which has no reference to the
fairness or propriety of the investigation or trial, cannot be
countenanced as permissible under the law. So, the discretion of
the Court while imposing conditions must be exercised with utmost
B
restraint.”
This Court also discussed the scope of the discretion of the court
to impose “any condition” on the grant of bail and observed:
“15. The words “any condition” used in the provision should not
be regarded as conferring absolute power on a Court of law to C
impose any condition that it chooses to impose. Any condition has
to be interpreted as a reasonable condition acceptable in the facts
permissible in the circumstance and effective in the pragmatic sense
and should not defeat the order of grant of bail.”
18. In Barun Chandra Thakur v. Ryan Augustine Pinto8, this D
Court restored a condition mandating that the respondent seek prior
permission from a competent court for travel abroad. The condition, which
was originally imposed by the High Court while granting anticipatory bail
was subsequently deleted by it. This Court made the following
observations with respect to imposing restrictions on the accused’s right
to travel: E

“9. ….There could be no gainsaying to that the right to travel
abroad is a valuable one and an integral part of the right to personal
liberty. Equally, however, the pre-condition of securing prior
permission before travelling abroad is a crucial ingredient which
undoubtedly was engrafted as a condition for the grant of F
anticipatory-bail in this case. ……At best, the condition for seeking
permission before travelling abroad could have been regulated,
not deleted altogether.”
19. This Court has passed multiple orders previously allowing an
accused enlarged on bail to travel abroad. In Ganpati Ramnath v State G
of Bihar9, this Court allowed an accused-applicant to travel abroad for
medical treatment, modifying its earlier bail order, noting that the applicant
8
Criminal Appeal No. 1618 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 9873 of 2019), order
dated 21 October 2019.
9
Crlmp. Nos. 6304 & 6305/2017 in Criminal Appeal Nos. 1187/2004, order dated 4
May 2017. H
130 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 11 S.C.R.

A had travelled abroad on the ground of medical necessity on six occasions
with the permission of the court and had returned. In K. Mohammed v
The State of Kerala10, this Court allowed the accused-appellant to
travel abroad to meet in the exigencies of a family situation. In Tarun
Trikha v State of West Bengal11, this Court allowed the accused-
petitioner to travel to Indonesia in connection with his employment and
B
to return once the work was completed. In Pitam Pradhan v State of A
P12, this Court while granting anticipatory bail, permitted the petitioner to
travel abroad noting that his job required him to travel abroad at frequent
intervals and may lose his employment if he were not permitted to travel
abroad.
C 20. Having heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant and the learned counsel for the State of Maharashtra, it is
necessary for the Court to notice at the outset that a large amount of
litigation is pending between the appellant and the complainant, Mehraj
Rajabali Merchant. The appellant has furnished details of the litigation
D between the parties as well as of the criminal prosecutions, in his affidavit
dated 7 August 2020. This has been summarised in a tabular statement:
Court & Case Parti es
ate
Ms. Lokhandwala Disposed
E Thane

4 th Civil Judge JMFC, 08/10/2010
Thane

F Thane 03/01/2014

Noor Lokhandwala
16/09/2016

Lokhandwala
G

10
Criminal Appeal Nos. 547/2012, order dated 2 March 2020.
11
Special Leave to Appeal Crl. Nos. 4643/2015, order dated 29 May 2015.
12
H Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No(s).9664/2013, order dated 26 February 2014.
PARVEZ NOORDIN LOKHANDWALLA v. STATE OF 131
MAHARASHTRA & ANR. [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

Thane 25/01/2020 A

Lokhandwala

Lokhandwala
B
Hussain

Lokhandwala

C
Merchant
Municipal Comr. of
Thane

II. Cases initiated by Lokhandwallas (Disposed)
Court & Case Parties D
07/01/2013
Thane
Merchant

11/08/2015
E

Civil

22/01/2019

Lokhandwala F
13/09/2019
Sp.
Lokhandwala

III. Cases initiated by Merchants (Active)
Court & Case Parties Stage Next date G
No.
Argument

Sp.
Lokhandwala
H
132 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 11 S.C.R.

A Order

Notice
Unready

B

File of Stay
C

D

E Lokhandwala Notice
Civil Lokhandwala

Evidence
Parvez Nooruddin Lokhandwala

F

Summons
Thane Lokhandwala
Sp.

G
IV. Cases initiated by Lokhandwallas (Active)
Court & Case Parties Stage Next date
No.
Argument
Thane Lokhandwala
H
PARVEZ NOORDIN LOKHANDWALLA v. STATE OF 133
MAHARASHTRA & ANR. [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

Civil Firoz A
Lokhandwala
Farida N.
Lokhandwalla Unready

Rajabali
Merchant & Ors. B

V. Misc Cases
Court & Case Parties Stage Next date
No. C
Argument
Lokhandwalla (tentative)
3420/2020
Maharashtra

Argument Praecipe D
Lokhandwalla circulated

Maharashtra (tentative)
Amendment Seeking
ASDB-LD-VC Lokhandwalla carried out
E
Ors

21. The private complaint which is the genesis of the present
proceedings was instituted in January 2014. The gravamen of the
allegation is that the appellant has forged and fabricated the Power of F
Attorney of 19 December 2011 of his brother Shalin. Mr. Jha submits
that, as a matter of fact, the Power of Attorney has not been used at any
point; his brother was present in India at the time when conveyance was
entered into; and that his brother has never raised any objection. However,
we are not inclined to go into these factual aspects at the present stage. G
It would suffice to note that the co-accused was granted bail by the Sessions
Judge Thane on 16 April 2018. We are called upon to decide only whether
the appellant should be permitted to travel to the US for eight weeks. In
evaluating this issue, we must have regard to the nature of the allegations,
the conduct of the appellant and above all, the need to ensure that he
H
134 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 11 S.C.R.

A does not pose a risk of evading the prosecution. The details which have
been furnished to the Court by the appellant, indicate that he has regularly
travelled between the US and India on as many as sixteen occasions
between 2015 and 2020. He has maintained a close contact with India.
The view of the High Court that he has no contact with India is contrary
to the material on record. The lodging of an FIR should not in the facts of
B
the present case be a bar on the travel of the appellant to the US for
eight weeks to attend to the business of revalidating his Green Card.
The conditions which a court imposes for the grant of bail – in this case
temporary bail – have to balance the public interest in the enforcement
of criminal justice with the rights of the accused. The human right to
C dignity and the protection of constitutional safeguards should not become
illusory by the imposition of conditions which are disproportionate to the
need to secure the presence of the accused, the proper course of
investigation and eventually to ensure a fair trial. The conditions which
are imposed by the court must bear a proportional relationship to the
purpose of imposing the conditions. The nature of the risk which is posed
D
by the grant of permission as sought in this case must be carefully
evaluated in each case.
22. Mr. Sachin Patil submitted that the appellant was granted
temporary bail for a period of eight weeks by the High Court, by its order
dated 19 May 2020, and the appellant has neither furnished surety nor he
E has surrendered after the expiry of the period of eight weeks.
23. As far as the furnishing of sureties is concerned, Mr. Jha
stated, on instructions, that the directions of the High Court have been
complied with. In regard to the surrender of the appellant, the Court has
been apprised of the fact that as a result of the lock down occasioned by
F the outbreak of Covid-19, the High Court on the judicial side passed
successive orders 13 on 26 March 2020, 15 April 2020 and 15 June 2020
extending its interim orders. In the meantime, to establish his bona fides,
the appellant states that he had moved the High Court in successive
praecipes for early hearing, while instituting an IA for modification of
G the conditions imposed on 19 May 2020 and, eventually, it was on the
direction of this Court that the High Court passed the impugned order.
24. Having regard to the genesis of the dispute as well as the
issue as to whether the appellant is likely to flee from justice if he were to
be permitted to travel to the US, we find, on the basis of the previous
H 13
Writ Petition Urgent 2 of 2020
PARVEZ NOORDIN LOKHANDWALLA v. STATE OF 135
MAHARASHTRA & ANR. [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

record of the appellant, that there is no reason or justification to deny him A
the permission which has been sought to travel to the US for eight weeks.
The appellant is an Indian citizen and holds an Indian passport. While it is
true that an FIR has been lodged against the appellant, that, in our view,
should not in itself prevent him from travelling to the US, where he is a
resident since 1985, particularly when it has been drawn to the attention
B
of the High Court and this Court that serious consequences would ensue
in terms of the invalidation of the Green Card if the appellant were not
permitted to travel. The record indicates the large amount of litigation
between the family of the appellant and the complainant. Notwithstanding
or perhaps because of this, the appellant has frequently travelled between
the US and India even after the filing of the complaint and the FIR. We C
accordingly are of the view that the application for modification was
incorrectly rejected by the High Court and the appellant ought to have
been allowed to travel to the US for a period of eight weeks. We
accordingly permit the appellant to do so, subject to his furnishing an
undertaking to this Court before the date of travel that he will return to
D
India after the expiry of a period of eight weeks and that he shall be
available on all dates of hearing before the court of criminal jurisdiction,
unless specifically exempted from personal appearance. The undertaking
shall be filed in this court before the appellant undertakes travel. On the
return of the appellant after eight weeks and if it becomes necessary for
him to travel to the US, the appellant shall apply to the concerned court E
for permission to travel and any such application shall be considered on
its own merits by the competent court. The appellant shall travel only
upon the grant of permission and subject to the terms imposed. The
passport of the appellant shall be handed over to the appellant to facilitate
his travel, subject to the condition that he shall deposit it with the
F
investigating officer immediately on his return.
25. Accordingly, the order of the High Court dated 23 July 2020
shall stand set aside and the appeal shall stand disposed of in terms of the
above directions.
G
Divya Pandey Appeal disposed of.

H