Failure To Comply With Conditions Imposed By Court While Permitting Undertrial To Leave Country Can't Be Taken Lightly: Delhi High Court

While the Petitioner claimed that he was prevented from filing the affidavit due to unforeseen circumstances, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma took a stern view of this lapse and observed,

“Once a conditional order is passed permitting a person facing a criminal trial to leave the country, such an order must be complied with strictly and in its entirety. The pre-condition of furnishing details of stay, itinerary, and contact number was not a mere formality – it was integral to ensuring that the Court retained effective control over the petitioner‟s movement and presence, and could secure his attendance as and when required.”

The Judge added that Petitioner's “casual” excuse that due to urgency of travel he forgot to comply with the condition, cannot be accepted as a justification for not complying with the order.

“The said requirement formed the very soul of the order granting liberty to travel abroad, and any non-compliance, regardless of intention, cannot be taken lightly. The petitioner, having failed to adhere to the conditions imposed on him subject to which he was being allowed to travel abroad, must bear the consequences that flow from such noncompliance,” it observed.

The Petitioner was booked under Sections 376, 328 and 506 IPC in the year 2016.

He claimed that since the time he was granted bail, he had been continuously travelling abroad, for which he was being granted permissions by the concerned Magistrate (before filing of chargesheet) and by the concerned Sessions Court (after filing of chargesheet).

However, this time, the Petitioner claimed he could not file the required affidavit detailing his itinerary and contact details during his stay abroad as the side mirrors of his car were stolen from his residence just two days prior to his travelling abroad and it took him two days to get the FIR registered.

Nevertheless, the Petitioner contended that in order to demonstrate his bona fides, he promptly e-mailed the itinerary to the Court's official email id, although he could not get the same attested owing to the unavailability of the Oath Commissioner at the last moment.

Unconvinced, the Sessions Court observed that the Petitioner had violated the conditions of the permission for travel abroad, and that the FDR of Rs. 2 lakhs stood forfeited on account of the same.

Aggrieved, he approached the High Court.

The High Court was of the opinion that the Petitioner was fully aware of the requirement to comply with the conditions imposed while being granted permission to travel abroad and the failure on his part to comply with the same could not be taken lightly. It observed,

“It is his own case that he had been permitted to travel overseas on several earlier occasions as well, which demonstrates his familiarity with the process and the specific conditions imposed upon him by the Courts below. He was clearly conscious of the fact that failure to abide by any of the conditions of the order – particularly the filing of an affidavit detailing his itinerary, contact details, and addresses abroad – would result in the forfeiture of the FDR of Rs. 2 lakhs. His explanation that he had failed to comply with the said direction merely because the side mirrors of his car were stolen two days prior to his departure is devoid of any merit in this Court's view.”

As such, the petition was dismissed.

Appearance: Mr. Chirag Aneja, Advocate for Petitioner; Mr. Manoj Pant, APP for State

Case title: Dinesh Aneja v. State Through Government Of NCT Of Delhi

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 556

Case no.: CRL.M.C. 4215/2022

Click here to read order