Bombay High Court
KARAN SANJAY JADHAVversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The High Court held that a blanket travel restriction is unjustified where bail has been granted and must be modified to require prior notice and a cash security.
Summary
The applicant, Karan Sanjay Jadhav, charged under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, sought a fresh passport after losing his original one and applied to the trial court for permission to travel abroad for employment. The trial court granted the passport application but imposed Condition No.3, prohibiting the applicant from leaving the jurisdiction without prior court permission. The applicant contended that the condition was unwarranted, especially since bail had been granted and he was not deemed a flight risk. The High Court examined whether such a travel restriction was justified and found it excessive. Consequently, the Court partially allowed the interim application, substituting Condition No.3 with a requirement to inform the trial court a week before travel, provide contact details, deposit a cash security of Rs.50,000, and report back within three days of return. The order was disposed of on these terms.
Issues considered
- Whether the trial court can impose a blanket restriction on the accused’s travel without prior permission when bail has been granted.
- Whether Condition No.3 restricting the applicant’s movement is justified under the facts of the case.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 69
Subjects
- bail
- passport
- travel restriction
- interim application
- flight risk
- cash security
- criminal procedure
Judgment
WAKLE
MANOJ MANOJ 909-IA-2840-2026.DOC
JANARDHAN
Digitally signed by
WAKLE MANOJ
JANARDHAN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Date: 2026.08.25
18:45:19 +0530 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.2840 OF 2026
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.2269 OF 2026
Karan Sanjay Jadhav …Applicant
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. …Respondents
Ms. Dikshita Gupte, for the Applicant.
Mr. V. A. Kulkarni, APP for the Respondent No.1-State.
Mr. Karan S. Jadhav, Applicant-in-person, present.
PSI – Janardan Chogale (pairvi) Andheri Police Station, present.
CORAM: SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.
DATED : 21st AUGUST, 2026
P.C. :-
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the record.
2. Present application seeks setting aside of Condition No.3 in
the impugned Order dated 18th July, 2026 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Dindoshi, below application Exhibit-10
in Sessions Case No.97 of 2026, which directs that, the applicant
shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior
permission of said Court.
3. The applicant is facing the said case for the charge of the
offence punishable under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023. The aforesaid Writ Petition has been preferred by
the applicant to quash and set aside the proceedings in the said
case.
4. Earlier, the Applicant had filed an Interim Application
No.1922 of 2026 in the aforesaid Writ Petition and sought for
Page 1 of 3
MANOJ 909-IA-2840-2026.DOC
permission of this Court to apply for a fresh passport as he had
lost his first passport. By an Order dated 15 th June, 2026, this
Court disposed of that IA/1922/2026, thereby permitting the
applicant to withdraw the Interim Application with liberty to file
an appropriate application before the trial Court for similar relief.
Accordingly, the applicant filed the said application Exh.-10
seeking permission of the trial Court to obtain a fresh passport.
5. By the impugned Order, the trial Court allowed the
application Exh.-10 but imposing the said condition No.3.
6. It is the matter of record that said condition No.3 was not
imposed while granting bail to the applicant. Meaning, while
granting the bail, the Court concerned was not of the view that the
applicant is a flight risk and he may abscond. The applicant is
seeking the fresh passport because he has got an employment
opportunity vide email dated 21st July, 2026, that he has been
assigned to MV WAN HAI 627. However, without valid travel
documents the applicant cannot avail that opportunity. Ms. Gupte
stated that the applicant is traveling abroad for limited period.
7. In the backdrop and, considering the facts of the case, the
impugned condition No.3 is not justifiable. Instead, the applicant
is directed that before traveling abroad he shall intimate the trial
Court one week in advance enclosing the detailed itinerary, travel
tickets, addresses and phone no. of the office through which he
can be contacted and depositing cash security of Rs.50,000/-.
8. The Interim Application stands allowed in part. Hence,
following Order:-
(a) The Interim Application is partly allowed.
Page 2 of 3
MANOJ 909-IA-2840-2026.DOC
(b) The condition No.3 is modified/substituted thus:-
(i) Before traveling abroad, the Applicant shall
inform the trial Court one week in advance his
contact details where he can be contacted for the
purpose of the trial, through police. Additionally, the
Applicant shall deposit Rs.50,000/- in the trial Court,
as cash security for the purpose of traveling abroad.
After returning from traveling abroad the Applicant
shall inform the trial Court the said fact within three
days from the date of his arrival.
9. Application stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.
(SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.)
Page 3 of 3
Checking your session…