Bombay High Court
Kalyanji Vishwambhar ChaudharyversusThe State ofMaharashtra
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The condition restraining the applicant from leaving India without court permission is quashed and set aside.
Summary
The applicant, Vaishali Anil Tikam, sought a revision of a Special Judge's order that, while allowing passport renewal, barred him from leaving India without court permission pending trial. He argued that the restriction caused undue inconvenience for his job in the Netherlands and offered to file an undertaking to appear in court when required. The State and a co‑respondent opposed, fearing the applicant might abscond if the restriction were lifted. The High Court examined whether the condition was a lawful restriction on personal liberty and considered the applicant's willingness to give an undertaking. Finding no justification for the restriction, the Court quashed the condition, ordered the applicant to file an undertaking, and partly allowed the revision application.
Issues considered
- Whether the condition imposed by the Special Judge requiring court permission before the applicant leaves India is valid.
- Whether the revision application should be allowed to set aside that condition.
Subjects
- passport renewal
- travel restriction
- court permission
- criminal revision
- undertaking
- absconding
- personal liberty
Judgment
51-REVN-465-2026 (CR).doc
Tikam
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. NO. 465 OF 2026
VAISHALI Kalyanji Vishwambhar Chaudhary ...Applicant/s
ANIL Versus
TIKAM The State Of Maharashtra and Anr. ...Respondent/s
Digitally signed
by VAISHALI _________________________________________________________________
ANIL TIKAM
Date:
2026.10.08 Mr. Shailesh Redekar a/w. Mr. Yogesh Rawool, Advocate for Applicant.
18:12:58 +0530
Mr. M.G. Patil, APP for Respondent-State.
Ms. Nukshinaro i/by M.V. Kini & Co., Advocate for Respondent No.2
API, Niwas Garle, Virar Police Station, present.
_________________________________________________________________
CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
DATE : 7th OCTOBER, 2026.
P.C. :
1. Heard learned counsel for the Applicant, learned APP and
Respondent No.2.
2. The challenge in this application is the order dated
23/06/2026 below Exhibit 4. passed by the Learned Special Judge
(M.S.E.B., Vasai) whereby discharge application of the Applicant is
rejected and another order dated 17/08/2026 passed below Exhibit 17,
whereby the Learned Special Judge has permitted the Applicant for
renewal of passport but restraining the Applicant from leaving India
without permission of the Court till disposal of the case.
3. Learned counsel for the Applicant, on instructions, submits tht
Page 1 of 3
51-REVN-465-2026 (CR).doc
Tikam
Applicant is not pressing the prayer of discharge application and
Applicant will contest the trail on its own merit. But, the Applicant is
contesting the condition i.e. to take permission of Learned Special Judge
while going abroad which will cause inconvenience to the Applicant.
Learned counsel further submitted that the Applicant’s base is in India
and for job purpose he wants to travel Netherland. Applicant shall file an
undertaking before the Special Court that he shall attend the Court as and
when required. His father is the Accused No.1 in the present case and
requested to allow the present application. Learned counsel further
submitted that Applicant has engaged an Advocate, who represent him.
Hence, there is no question of Applicant is not attending the trial as his
Advocate will proceed with the trial in absence of the Applicant.
4. Learned APP along with Respondent No.2 strongly objected to
allow the application on the ground that if application is allowed, the
Applicant may abscond and requested to reject the Application.
5. I have heard all learned counsel. Applicant’s base is in India.
The Learned Special Judge has permitted for renewal of passport but
imposed a condition that Applicant shall take permission of the Court
before leaving India. Applicant doing job in abroad i.e. at Netherland and
he want to travel frequently. The Applicant is ready to file an undertaking
before the Special Court that he shall attend the Court as and when
Page 2 of 3
51-REVN-465-2026 (CR).doc
Tikam
required. Considering these facts, I pass the following order:
ORDER
(i) Revision Application is partly allowed.
(ii) The condition imposed on the Applicant by the order dated
17/08/2026 below Exhibit 17 passed by the Learned Special
Judge, permitting the Applicant for renewal of passport but
restraining the Applicant from leaving India without permission
of the Court till disposal of the case, is quashed and set aside.
(iii) The Applicant shall file an undertaking before the Learned
Special Judge that he shall attend the Court as and when
required.
(iv) Revision Application is disposed of accordingly.
(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)
Page 3 of 3
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.