Direction to surrender passport in compliance of bail condition in a GST evasion case upheld

Direction of Magistrate to surrender passport in compliance of bail condition in a GST evasion case was not violative of fundamental rights or directions of Apex Court

In a recent judgment, District & Sessions Court Delhi has held direction of the Magistrate to surrender passport in compliance of bail condition in a GST evasion case was not violative of the fundamental rights or any of the directions of Hon’ble Apex Court of India.

ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
4607 (2025) (06) abcaus.in DC

Important Case Laws relied upon by Parties:
Suresh Chandra Vs. CBI (2008) 3SCC 674
 Chennupati Kranthi Kumar Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. (2023) 8 SCC 251

In the instant case, the assessee (the Revisionist) had filed a revision petition under Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) 1973 against the order passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate in directing the revisionist to re-deposit his passport in the court within one week of grant of visa as a condition of the grant of bail.

The passport had earlier been surrendered by the revisionist as a bail condition in a GST evasion case registered by the CGST Department, involving alleged revenue loss of over Rs.100 crores.

The revisionist contended that the Magistrate’s directions was impermissible in law as it was violative of the fundamental right of the revisionist enshrined in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution and the same is also expounded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

On the contrary, the respondent CGST Department opposed the revision petition, firstly on the ground that the revision was time-barred and secondly, by asserting that given the gravity of the offence i.e. massive fiscal fraud, the bail condition concerning the passport, was valid and necessary to ensure the revisionist’s presence and compliance.

The GST Department further submitted that the impugned order was valid and legal as the said order was passed in compliance and in continuation of the earlier bail order, whereby the accused (the revisionist) was directed to surrender his passport and was also directed not to travel abroad without the prior permission of the court. The Department stresses upon the contention that since the condition of bail had not been challenged, in fact has been adhered to, therefore, impugned order was legal and hence not to be set aside or discarded.

Also, the revisionist in his additional application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, had prayed for condoning 40 days of delay. The Department had raised a preliminary objection that the revision petition was barred by limitation, thus, it is liable to be dismissed.

The Sessions Court observed that the revisionist had cited that the delay occurred due to procedural formalities, consultation, and multiple counsels and administrative hurdles in procuring complete certified records.

The Sessions Court observed that the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. It was also laid down that length of delay is not material, acceptability of the explanation is the only criteria. If the explanation does not smack of malafides and it is not shown that the delay was deliberate, the court should condone the same.

Applying the principles laid down by the Apex Court, the Sessions Court opined that although there is delay of 40 days in filing the present revision petition, but the explanation given by the revisionist is covered within the definition of ‘sufficient cause’ as mentioned in Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1962. Moreover, no prejudice is likely to be caused to the respondent, if the abovenoted delay is condoned, whereas denial of hearing may cause an injustice to the revisionist. Hence, the delay of 40 days in filing of the present revision petition was condoned, and the petition was admitted for hearing on merits.

The Sessions Court observed that the revisionist’s passport was already surrendered in compliance of the bail condition, which was put by order granting bail to the revisionist. It was observed that the revisionist in compliance of the condition imposed by the Duty Magistrate surrendered his passport and did not challenge the order. The impugned order of Magistrate merely mandated that once a visa is granted, the passport be returned to the court within one week. This appeared to be a procedural step being taken by the court to ensure that the court retains custody of the travel document before, and/ or after the revisionist actually departs.

The Sessions Court opined that the Magistrate’s impugned order did not contravene law. The passport was not seized by the impugned order, the revisionist adhered to the initial order granting bail to the revisionist and in lieu of the same, deposited the passport with the Department. Hence, there was no indefinite ban on the travel of the revisionist by any of the orders.

The Sessions Court opined that the impugned order only imposed a precautionary condition within the bail frame work. It cannot be said that the impugned order was violative of the fundamental rights of the revisionist or it is in any way violative of any of the directions of Hon’ble Apex Court of India.

It was further observed that the revision jurisdiction of the court do not allow it to interfere unnecessarily in the legal orders passed by the Magistrate courts. Here, no such illegality or jurisdictional error was shown, which require indulgence of this court. The Magistrate acted within its powers to impose bail conditions.

Accordingly, it was held that the revision petition lacked merits. The impugned order was neither contrary to law nor arbitrary. Hence, the revision petition was dismissed.

Download Full Judgment Click Here >>

• In abated search assessments AO’s jurisdiction not restricted to “incriminating material” only
• Supreme Court declines to entertain SLP due to constitution of the GST Appellate Tribunal 
• After notice u/s 143(2) is issued, processing u/s 143(1) is not permissible
• Assessment Order without digital or manual signature is non-est and illegal
• Once ITR is filled in response to notice u/s 148 though late, notice u/s 143(2) is must – ITAT