High Court of Gujarat

SUNIL SURENDRAKUMAR KAKKADversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

Disposal: 38-RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @ FH
Bench: GITA GOPI

Holding

The court suspended condition (2)(f) of the bail order for six months, permitting the petitioner to travel abroad subject to itinerary disclosure and passport return requirements.

Summary

The petitioner, Sunil Surendrakumar Kakkad, filed a criminal revision seeking suspension of condition (2)(f) of his bail order, which prohibited him from leaving Gujarat without court permission. He argued that the Sessions Judge had not considered the full purchase order, which spanned 13 months plus an additional 6 months, and that the case had been stayed by the High Court on 5 September 2024. The State contended that the judge correctly noted only the initial 13‑month period and that the condition was justified. Upon reviewing the records, the High Court found that the 13‑month term had expired on 10 March 2026 and, given the stay of proceedings, allowed the petitioner to travel abroad for business. Consequently, the court suspended condition (2)(f) for six months, ordered the passport to be released after verification, and required the petitioner to disclose his itinerary and return the passport within a week of his return.

Issues considered

What is the appropriate procedure for modifying or suspending a bail condition that restricts travel when the underlying factual basis (purchase order duration) has changed?
Whether the stay of the criminal proceedings justifies a temporary suspension of the travel restriction imposed in the bail order.

Subjects

bailmodification of conditiontravel restrictionpurchase orderstay of proceedingscriminal revisionHigh Court of Gujarat

Judgment

     R/CR.RA/1328/2026                                       ORDER DATED: 04/05/2026




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

         R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (MODIFICATION OF
                 CONDITION/ORDER) NO. 1328 of 2026
==========================================================
                         SUNIL SURENDRAKUMAR KAKKAD
                                     Versus
                               STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR ADITYA A GUPTA(7875) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR PRANAV DHAGAT, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
 CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI

                               Date : 04/05/2026

                                     ORDER


1.     RULE. Learned APP waives service of notice on behalf of the
       respondent-State.


2.     By way of this application, a prayer is made for suspension of
       condition no.(2)(f) passed in the order dated 25.1.2024 by
       the learned Sessions Judge, Amreli in Criminal Miscellaneous
       Application no.50 of 2024. Condition No.(2)(f) reads as
       under:-


                “(f) applicant shall not leave the local limits
                of Gujarat without prior permission of this
                Court;”


3.     Mr.     Aditya     Gupta,   learned        advocate     for   the     applicant
       submitted that the learned Sessions Judge while rejecting the
       application on 2.4.2026 in Criminal Misc. Application no.145 of
       2026 has not perused the referred documents, i.e. the
       Purchase Order in its totality. It is further submitted that the



                                    Page 1 of 3
     R/CR.RA/1328/2026                                       ORDER DATED: 04/05/2026




       duration of the purchase assignment is 13 months + 6
       months and submitted that the case where bail has been
       granted has been stayed by way of ad-interim relief on
       5.9.2024 by this Court and the matter has been admitted and
       the interim relief has been confirmed.


4.     Learned           Additional   Public    Prosecutor     referring      to       the
       observations made by the learned Sessions Judge, has place
       reliance on the purchase order to submit that the learned
       Sessions Judge has referred to only 13 months, which has
       been specifically stated and further submitted that the
       observations made therein are just and proper.


5.     Having heard the submissions canvassed and on perusing the
       records of the case, it is clear that the purchase order is for a
       duration of 13 months + 6 months. As observed, the 13
       months period got exhausted on 10.3.2026, as per the
       Purchase Order. Since the matter has been stayed, and the
       applicant would like to visit Dubai for the purpose of business,
       the condition no.(2)(f) of the order of bail dated 25.1.2024
       passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Application no.50 of 2024 is
       suspended for a period of six (6) months from today.


6.     It is directed that the Passport be handed over to the
       applicant after carrying out the appropriate procedures for
       verification of his identity. The applicant is permitted to travel
       out of India during the period as prayed for, after disclosing
       his detailed itinerary before the learned Sessions Court and on
       his return, within one week, shall deposit the Passport to the
       CBI Court.



                                       Page 2 of 3
     R/CR.RA/1328/2026                                                          ORDER DATED: 04/05/2026




7.      With the aforesaid direction, this application stands disposed
        of. Rule made absolute. Direct Service is permitted.




                                                                                              (GITA GOPI,J)
        Maulik


 Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
 Digitally signed by: MAULIK RAJESH PANDYA(HC00205), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 04/05/2026 18:06:44




                                                   Page 3 of 3

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "bail"Sign in to search