Courts Cannot Turn Travel Permission Into Debt Recovery Mechanism: Punjab & Haryana High Court Eases ₹4.95 Crore Condition Imposed by CBI Court

Case Name: Ashish Gupta v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Another

Date of Judgment: 05 June 2026

Citation: CRM-M-32708-2026

Bench: Justice Rohit Kapoor

Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that while courts may impose reasonable conditions while permitting an accused to travel abroad, such conditions cannot be so onerous that they effectively defeat the right itself. The Court observed that criminal proceedings cannot be converted into a mechanism for recovery of disputed dues and reduced a condition requiring deposit of ₹4.95 crore to ₹50 lakh, holding that the original condition was disproportionate to the purpose sought to be achieved.

Summary: The petitioner approached the High Court challenging an order of the Special CBI Court that had permitted him to travel abroad with his daughter but directed him to deposit ₹4.95 crore in the form of a fixed deposit receipt as a pre-condition for such travel. The proposed visit was intended to explore educational opportunities and make arrangements for his daughter’s higher studies abroad.

The petitioner was one of the accused in a CBI case arising out of alleged bank fraud involving M/s Goldline Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., of which he was a Director. According to the allegations, the company had obtained a substantial term loan for a residential project, but the funds were allegedly diverted and the loan account was ultimately declared a fraud account by the lending bank.

While allowing the travel request, the CBI Court had imposed several conditions, including disclosure of itinerary details, furnishing security bonds, providing passport and visa particulars, disclosing foreign bank accounts, and depositing ₹4.95 crore, which represented approximately 7.5% of the alleged outstanding liability claimed by the bank.

The petitioner argued that the impugned condition was arbitrary because the alleged liability remained disputed and had not been adjudicated by any court. It was contended that imposing such a substantial financial burden as a pre-condition for exercising the right to travel abroad effectively presumed guilt and undermined the constitutional presumption of innocence. The petitioner further pointed out that he had previously travelled abroad on multiple occasions with court permission and had always returned to India without violating any condition.

The CBI opposed the plea and argued that economic offences involve a higher risk of absconding. It was submitted that the condition was reasonable considering the magnitude of the alleged bank fraud and the need to secure the petitioner’s presence during trial.

Justice Rohit Kapoor examined the reasoning adopted by the CBI Court and observed that the lower court itself had not recorded any finding that the petitioner was a flight risk. On the contrary, the record showed that the petitioner had cooperated with the investigation, had not been arrested by the CBI, and had complied with earlier permissions granted for foreign travel.

The High Court emphasized that criminal courts are not recovery forums and are not expected to act as agents for realization of disputed debts. Merely because an accused had travelled abroad previously or possessed the financial capacity to undertake foreign travel could not justify imposing an excessively burdensome monetary condition unrelated to securing his appearance. The Court further observed that conditions attached to travel permissions must remain proportionate and cannot render the permission illusory.

The Court also clarified that observations made in earlier proceedings suggesting a percentage-based deposit could not be treated as a binding precedent applicable in every case. The reasonableness of conditions must be assessed on the peculiar facts of each matter.

Decision: Partly allowing the petition, the Punjab & Haryana High Court modified the impugned condition imposed by the CBI Court. Instead of depositing ₹4.95 crore in the form of an FDR, the petitioner was directed to deposit ₹50 lakh while complying with all other conditions imposed in the order granting permission to travel abroad. The Court held that this modification appropriately balanced the petitioner’s right to travel abroad with the need to secure his presence during the pendency of criminal proceedings.