Bombay High Court Allows GST Fraud Case Accused To Travel Abroad, Says Right To Travel Part Of Personal Liberty

The Bombay High Court has recently observed that the right to travel abroad forms part of the fundamental right to personal liberty under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution and that such liberty cannot be restricted merely on the basis of apprehensions that are not supported by material on record.

The court permitted a businessman facing prosecution in a GST fraud case to travel overseas for business as well as personal reasons, observing that conditions requiring prior permission before traveling abroad are intended to ensure that the accused remains available for trial and does not evade the process of law and cannot be relied upon when the material on record does not indicate any such risk.

Justice N. J. Jamadar was hearing a petition filed by businessman Daulat Samirmal Mehta challenging an order of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Explanade, Mumbai, rejecting his application seeking permission to travel abroad.

The court observed,

“Personal liberty is not confined to the constricted sense of freedom from arrest and detention. The expression 'personal liberty' is of wide amplitude and subsumes in its fold right to travel abroad and return to India without hindrance. The personal liberty can be deprived only according to the procedure established by law.”

Mehta is facing prosecution for offences under Section 132(1)(b) and (c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 in connection with alleged fraudulent availment of input tax credit through bogus invoices, which allegedly resulted in a loss of about Rs 399.92 crore to the public exchequer.

He was released on bail in 2021 by the High Court with a condition to deposit his passport.

In January 2025, the High Court ordered that the petitioner's passport be returned but made it clear that he would have to seek prior permission from the trial court each time he wished to travel abroad.

He later moved the trial court, seeking permission to travel overseas for business, but the Magistrate refused the request, referring to the seriousness of the allegations, the scale of the alleged loss to the revenue, and the possibility that the petitioner might abscond.

While setting aside that order, the High Court observed that nothing on record showed that the petitioner, after being released on bail, had conducted himself in a way that suggested any intention to evade the legal process.

The court observed that although allegations involve a loss of Rs 399.92 crore to the exchequer, that circumstance alone cannot be the sole basis to deny permission to travel abroad when the material indicates that the petitioner has roots in society.

For Petitioner: Advocates Briesh Pathak and Anjali Joshi

For Respondent No. 1: Advocates Jitendra B Mishra along with Rupesh Dubey instructed by Sangeeta Yadav,