Court Upholds Petitioners' Right to Travel Abroad Without Prior Permission, Sets Aside CJM's Order
In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has set aside a Chief Judicial Magistrate's (CJM) order that imposed travel restrictions on petitioners Shabir Momin and Vikramjit Roy, requiring them to seek prior permission before traveling abroad. The judgment, delivered by Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani, underscores the limitations of a Magistrate's powers in altering bail conditions and reaffirms the petitioners' constitutional right to free movement.
The case stems from an FIR registered in 2016, where the petitioners were granted bail by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM) in March 2021. The bail order did not initially contain any travel restrictions. However, in February 2025, the CJM imposed a condition mandating prior permission for foreign travel, following an application by the complainant, citing concerns that the petitioners might abscond.
The petitioners challenged this imposition, leading to a series of legal proceedings. The Sessions Court initially stayed the order and later set it aside, directing the CJM to reconsider the application afresh. Despite this directive, the CJM issued a "clarification" in November 2025, effectively reinstating the travel restriction.
Justice Bhambhani ruled that the CJM's attempt to clarify the original bail order by introducing new conditions was impermissible, as it amounted to an unlawful review or modification. The court emphasized that the power to modify bail conditions is exclusively vested in the Sessions Court or High Court under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and not in the Magistrate's court.
Furthermore, the judgment highlighted that the original bail order did not require prior permission for travel, and any attempt to impose such conditions under the guise of clarification was a jurisdictional overreach by the Magistrate. The court reiterated that criminal courts do not possess inherent powers to review or alter final orders, except to correct clerical or arithmetical errors, as per Section 362 of the Cr.P.C.
While acknowledging the petitioners' multiple foreign trips without prior court permission, the court condoned these infractions, noting that the CJM's order was non-est in law. The petitioners were found to have consistently complied with court processes, voluntarily returning to India after each trip, thereby causing no prejudice to the trial proceedings.
In its ruling, the High Court directed the petitioners to adhere to the original bail conditions without any requirement for prior travel permission. As a measure of atonement, it instructed the petitioners to pay costs of Rs. 2,00,000 each to Friendicoes SECA within two weeks, reinforcing accountability for the procedural breach.
This judgment not only clarifies the limitations of Magistrates in modifying bail orders but also reinforces the constitutional rights of individuals to travel, ensuring that procedural errors do not infringe upon fundamental liberties.
Bottom line:-
A Magistrate does not have the power to alter or review final orders of bail, except to correct clerical or arithmetical errors, as provided under Section 362 of Cr.P.C. Travel restrictions introduced as a 'clarification' to the original bail order are impermissible and non-est in law.
Statutory provision(s):
- Section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
- Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
- Articles 21 and 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950
- Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
- Section 530 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
Shabir Momin v. State NCT of Delhi, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc id # 2909909
