Bombay High Court
Kirti Vishwanath Kedia vs Central Bureau Of Investigation (Eob) ... on 22 August, 2025
Author: Milind N. Jadhav
Bench: Milind N. Jadhav
2025:BHC-AS:36086
2.IA.3323.24 & IA.3359.24.doc
Ajay
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3323 OF 2024
IN
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 960 OF 2022
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3359 OF 2024
IN
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 959 OF 2022
Kirti Vishwanath Kedia .. Applicant
Versus
Central Bureau of Investigation (EOB) and Anr. .. Respondents
....................
Dr. Sujay Kantawala a/w. Ms. Sajal Yadav, Mr. Aishwarya
Kantawala, Jeffry Caleb and Mr. Harsh Ghangurde, Advocates i/by
Mr. Anukul B. Seth for Applicant.
Mr. Kuldeep S. Patil a/w. Dhavalsinh V. Patil and Mr. Yogesh A.
Sukale, Advocates for Respondent No.1 - CBI.
Mr. Y.Y. Dabake, APP for Respondent - State.
Dr. Ashwini Takalkar, APP for Respondent No.2 - State.
....................
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : AUGUST 22, 2025.
P.C.:
1. Heard Dr. Kantawala, learned Advocate for Applicant; Mr.
Patil, learned Advocate for Respondent No.1 - CBI; Mr. Dabake,
learned APP for Respondent - State and Dr. Takalkar, learned APP for
Respondent No.2 - State.
2. Present Interim Application No.3323 of 2024 is filed by
Applicant who is arraigned as Accused No.9 in charge-sheet filed by
Respondent No.1 - Central Bureau of Investigation (EOB) (for short
1 of 15
2.IA.3323.24 & IA.3359.24.doc
'CBI') in CBI Special Case No.1643 of 2021. Application seeks
modification of order dated 21.12.2022 passed by this Court (Coram:
Bharati Dangre, J.) in Anticipatory Bail Application No.960 of 2022 to
the extent of deletion of condition Nos.(c) and (d) stated in that order
as conditions for bail qua the Applicant before me. It is seen that the
order dated 21.12.2022 was a common order passed in 2 Bail
Applications and 4 Anticipatory Bail Applications moved by Applicants
in the said case.
3. Dr. Kantawala, learned Advocate would submit that
Applicant was not arrested during investigation and his cooperation /
availability for investigation with Respondent No.1 - CBI for purpose
of investigation is not in dispute. He would submit that learned Trial
Court after taking cognizance of order dated 15.02.2022 passed by this
Court in Anticipatory Bail Application No.960 of 2022 issued summons
to Applicant to appear on 04.04.2022 for investigation. He would
submit that Applicant filed exemption Application for personal
appearance on that date through his Advocate which was rejected and
non-bailable warrant was issued against Applicant.
3.1. He would submit that in the meantime Accused Nos.3, 12,
18, 19, 23, 25 and 26 in the Special CBI case were arrested and sent to
judicial custody and their Bail Applications were rejected by order
dated 05.12.2022. In the above circumstances, Applicant was
2 of 15
2.IA.3323.24 & IA.3359.24.doc
constrained to approach this Court for seeking Anticipatory Bail by
filing Anticipatory Bail Application Nos.160 of 2022 and 959 of 2022.
He would submit that those Application were allowed alongwith 2
other Bail Applications and 3 other Anticipatory Bail Applications of
other co-accused persons by common order dated 21.12.2022
appended at Exhibit 'B' - page No.26 of Interim Application No.3323
of 2024.
3.2. He would submit that in that order this Court allowed
Anticipatory Bail Application of Applicant alongwith 3 other
Anticipatory Bail Applications by directing all Applicants to surrender
their passports, if any, before the Investigating Officer within one week
of their release and directed them not to leave the country without
prior permission of the Special CBI Court. These directions are
contained in the operative part nomenclatured as 'Order in
Anticipatory Bail Applications' as can be seen on page No.44 of the
Application. In the present Interim Application, Applicant before me
prays for deletion of the said twin conditions namely condition Nos.(c)
and (d) imposed by Court regarding surrender of passport and seeking
permission of Special CBI Court before leaving the country on the
following grounds:-
(i) According to Applicant, the said twin conditions are
onerous conditions as they fetter the right of Applicant
3 of 15
2.IA.3323.24 & IA.3359.24.doc
to free travel and impose an embargo upon Applicant;
(ii) That order dated 08.04.2022 which was interim order
passed by this Court in Anticipatory Bail Application
No.939 of 2022 did not have the said conditions
curbing the travel freedom of the Applicant;
(iii) That pursuant to passing of order dated 21.12.2022
Applicant has undertaken 12 trips out of the country for
business purposes (3), family purposes (3) and for
medical purposes (6) between 07.03.2023 to
21.07.2024;
(iv) That Applicant has visited Dubai, UAE and the United
Kingdom for business purposes and Singapore for his
medical check-up and follow-up. That Applicant has on
all occasions adhered to the twin conditions and on
every occasion approached the CBI Special Court for
release of passport and sought permission of Court to
travel abroad for his business purposes, family purposes
and his medical check-up / follow up.;
(v) That not even once Applicant has derelicted or given an
opportunity to prosecution and has always complied
with all conditions of travel and returned back
considering that Applicant has substantial business
4 of 15
2.IA.3323.24 & IA.3359.24.doc
interests, property and his family living in Mumbai /
India.
(vi) That according to Applicant the twin conditions are
onerous to in as much as Applicant is required to travel
abroad for his business purposes and most importantly
for his medical check-up/ follow up visits repeatedly at
very short notice and it is extremely cumbersome for
Applicant to approach the Court every time at the 11 th
hour for release of his passport and for seeking
permission to travel abroad since this exercise is time
consuming and on most occasions due to delay it leads
to failure of his business meetings and cancellation of
medical appointments;
(vii) Lastly, Applicant would submit that it is settled position
of law concluded by Supreme Court in a subsequent
judgment dated 16.05.2024 in the case of Tarsem Lal
Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, Jalandhar Zonal Office
in Criminal Appeal No.2608 of 2024 that once the Trial
Court has taken cognizance of the matter and passed
interim order dated 15.02.2022 (in the case of
Applicant herein) seeking appearance of Applicant and
Applicant having complied with the same then
5 of 15
2.IA.3323.24 & IA.3359.24.doc
Applicant would not have been taken into custody. He
would submit that despite this order Applicant was
constrained to file Anticipatory Bail Applications in view
of the learned Special Court sending some of the other
co-accused persons to custody during investigation at
post-cognizance stage. He would therefore submit that
the twin conditions imposed upon Applicant in the
order granting Anticipatory Bail cannot be impose on
Applicant since he had appeared before the learned
Trial Court at post-cognizance stage as a free person
and if that is the case then the Court has no option but
to release such a person by accepting his bonds without
sureties and without imposing any additional
conditions.
3.3. He would submit that imposition of additional conditions
while granting bail by relying on provisions of Sections 437 and 439 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') is bad in law
in the present facts and circumstances. He would submit that in the
peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, except what has
been contemplated under Section 88 of the Cr.P.C., no other condition
could have been imposed on the Applicant. Hence, he would submit
that the twin conditions namely (c) and (d) in the order dated
21.12.2022 to the extent of the Applicant be quashed and set aside.
6 of 15
2.IA.3323.24 & IA.3359.24.doc
4. PER CONTRA, Mr. Patil, learned Advocate for Respondent
No.1 - CBI would submit that imposition of the twin conditions in the
present case is imperative in view of the apprehension that Applicant
may misuse the liberty granted to him to travel abroad and may not
return back to stand to trial at all.
4.1. He would submit that Applicant is an accused person in CBI
Special Case No.1643 of 2021 arising out of offences registered under
Section 120-B, 420, 468 and 471 of IPC. He would submit that the
charges are serious and its gravity cannot be disregarded considering
that there is loss of huge public money to the tune of Rs.2,200 crores
which is a serious economic offence which affects the economic fabric
of the country at large and therefore imposition of the twin conditions
cannot be called as a fetter on the freedom to travel of Applicant. He
would submit that whenever Applicant has approached the Special
Court, it has granted permission to Applicant to travel abroad.
5. In his usual fairness, Mr. Patil would submit that in so far as
multiple visits undertaken by Applicant abroad are concerned, it is an
admitted fact that he has always complied with the conditions imposed
and always returned back on time. He would fairly submit that it is not
in dispute that Applicant was never arrested when he was interrogated
during the course of investigation or that he has not participated in
investigation. He would submit that reliance of Applicant on the
7 of 15
2.IA.3323.24 & IA.3359.24.doc
decision of Supreme Court cannot be indicative of the proposition that
if the accused is not arrested during the course of investigation he can
never be arrested on filing of the charge-sheet as such a case would
vary on the facts and circumstances of each case. Hence he would
submit that this Court be pleased to pass appropriate orders and in the
event if inclined to grant the Application for modification may
significantly ensure that the prosecution is always in the know-how of
the whereabouts of Applicant as and when he travels abroad.
6. I have heard Dr. Kantawala, learned Advocate appearing for
Applicant and Mr. Patil, learned Advocate for Respondent No.1 - CBI
and with their able assistance perused the record and pleadings of the
case. Submissions made by the learned Advocates have received due
consideration of the Court.
7. At the outset, it is seen that investigation has been completed
and charge-sheet has been filed in the subject Special Case filed by
CBI. It is also borne out from the record that Applicant has duly
participated in investigation as and when called for by prosecution
and never derelicted from participation. Application of Applicant
before Court is for deletion of the twin conditions namely (c) and (d)
in the order granting bail requiring Applicant to deposit his passport
with the Court and seek permission of the Court as and when he has to
travel abroad. The contour of the Application is on the basis of two
8 of 15
2.IA.3323.24 & IA.3359.24.doc
submissions one of which is fact based and second being a legal
submission.
8. According to Applicant, he is required to travel abroad
repeatedly for various purposes. The details of his travel between
March - 2023 and July - 2024 on 12 occasions which have been stated
in Application alongwith all details including the dates and purpose. It
is seen that Applicant has business interests in foreign countries for
which he is required to travel frequently for business meetings as also
recently one of the major reason for his travel abroad is for his medical
check-up and follow-up to Singapore where he has travelled on 6
occasions in the past. Applicant is suffering from a kidney ailment and
is treated abroad in Singapore, details of which have been appended to
the Application and is required to travel at short notice on receiving
the Doctor's appointment. Case of Applicant is that whenever he is
required to travel, the onerous conditions of seeking release of his
passport before travel filing Application for release of passport,
applying for permission to travel abroad to Trial Court, awaiting filing
of reply from prosecution, hearing of Application, awaiting final order
from the CBI Special Court are all such incidents which are time
consuming and most importantly they act as a fetter on his right to
travel abroad either for business purpose or medical purposes or for his
family reasons. Applicant's grievance is that the essence of his business
trips / medical check-up visits is lost because of the delay which occurs
9 of 15
2.IA.3323.24 & IA.3359.24.doc
in the legal system from the point of Applicant making Application for
seeking release of his passport until the Trial Court passes the order
and Applicant receives it in his hand, Applicant's case is that in case of
emergency and exigency when Applicant is required to travel abroad
for the reasons, due to consumption of time either his schedule cannot
be followed or complied with or his appointments get cancelled as
there is very little time available on Applicant's hand to approach the
Court for seeking release of his passport and permission to travel
abroad.
9. That apart, in so far as travelling abroad for his medical
check-up and follow-up visits are concerned, those visits critically
depend upon availability of appointment of doctors who are treating
the Applicant in Singapore for his kidney ailment and when such
appointments are received at short notice undoubtedly it is a
cumbersome on the part of Applicant to immediately undertake the
process of applying for release of passport and seek permission to
travel abroad within a short period of time which at many a times
becomes impossible for Applicant since he has to manage his health
condition simultaneously and seek such appointments based on his
health condition. These submissions of Applicant on the factual aspect,
prima facie appeal to the Court.
10 of 15
2.IA.3323.24 & IA.3359.24.doc
10. That apart it is seen that Applicant has deep roots in the
Society, he has substantial properties and business interests in Mumbai
and India and therefore the twin conditions of requiring Applicant to
surrender his passport after every trip abroad and once again seek its
release and permission to travel abroad is undoubtedly on the face of
record cumbersome and therefore it possibly results in loss of short
term business opportunities, but also acts as a curb and fetter of
meeting deadlines by Applicant and more so regarding his frequent
medical visits for his ailment.
11. From that perspective, I am in complete agreement and in
consonance with submissions advanced by Dr. Kantawala in interfering
with the twin conditions namely (c) and (d) in the Anticipatory Bail
Application. Needless to state that appropriate directions can be passed
requiring Applicant to share all his details of travel with prosecution
and Investigating Officer before he undertakes any such travel.
12. The second reason advanced by Applicant is on account of a
subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Tarsem Lal
(supra) dated 16.05.2024 which interprets the provisions of Section 88
of Cr.P.C. viz-a-viz Section 205 of Cr.P.C.
13. Both these provisions are reproduced below for reference:-
"88. Power to take bond for appearance.
When any person for whose appearance or arrest the
officer presiding in any Court is empowered to issue a summons
11 of 15
2.IA.3323.24 & IA.3359.24.doc
or warrant, is present in such Court, such officer may require
such person to execute a bond, with or without sureties, for his
appearance in such Court, or any other Court to which the case
may be transferred for trial."
"205. Magistrate may dispense with personal attendance of
accused.
(1) Whenever a Magistrate issues a summons, he may, if he
sees reason so to do, dispense with the personal attendance of
the accused and permit him to appear by his pleader. (2) But
the Magistrate inquiring into or trying the case may, in his
discretion, at any stage of the proceedings, direct the personal
attendance of the accused, and, if necessary, enforce such
attendance in the manner hereinbefore provided."
14. The operative conclusion in the said decision is contained in
paragraph No.23 wherein the Supreme Court has held that an order
accepting bonds under Section 88 of Cr.P.C. does not amount to grant
of bail. It is seen that the object of Section 88 of Cr.P.C. is to ensure
appearance of a person in Court and the only condition contemplated
in Section 88 is for such person to execute a bond with or without
sureties. In the case of Applicant before me due to interim order dated
15.02.2022 he was issued summons to appear on 04.04.2022 and
hence he could not have been taken into custody. However because of
a subsequent development of some co-accused persons having been
taken into custody, the Applicant was constrained to file Anticipatory
Bail Application. It is in this background that Anticipatory Bail
Application filed by Applicant was heard and bail was granted with
conditions imposed in the said order.
12 of 15
2.IA.3323.24 & IA.3359.24.doc
15. Considering the aforesaid background and submissions
advanced by Dr. Kantawala about the application of the ratio of the
Supreme Court order in the case of Tarsem Lal (supra) to the facts of
the present case, it is seen that Applicant was not arrested till the filing
of the charge-sheet as he was directed to appear on summons and he
had appeared. In such a situation it was incumbent upon the learned
Trial Court to direct Applicant to furnish bond as contemplated under
Section 88 of the Cr.P.C..
16. Further it is seen that Applicant had a medical surgery in
Singapore and is required to regularly do his follow-up visits with his
treating Doctor in Singapore. It is seen that he has already undergone
heart bypass surgery on 20.11.2013 by Dr. Lye Ywai Chong in
Singapore. It is also seen that he is suffering from kidney ailment. It is
also seen that Applicant is a businessman and has wide experience and
expertise in the field of construction, finance and property
development and therefore needs to travel abroad for business purpose
at short notice. It is in this background that the order came to be
passed against the Accused persons laying down the conditions
regarding surrender of passport and seeking leave of Court to travel
abroad.
17. Taking an overall view of the case in the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the Applicant's case while accepting submissions
13 of 15
2.IA.3323.24 & IA.3359.24.doc
advanced by Dr. Kantawala on the factual grounds as also applicability
of the provisions of Section 88 of the Cr.P.C. to the case of Applicant, I
am of the opinion that the twin conditions namely (c) and (d) in the
order granting anticipatory bail to the Applicant are required to be
interfered with and deleted.
18. In view of my above observations and findings and the
peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case of Applicant, the
twin conditions namely (c) and (d) in the order dated 21.12.2022 qua
the Applicant before me in so far as Anticipatory Bail Application
No.960 of 2022 is concerned stand deleted. Passport of Applicant
shall be returned back to Applicant if in the custody of the
Investigating Officer or Trial Court forthwith.
19. However, deletion of the said conditions is subject to the
following conditions which shall be scrupulously followed by Applicant
whenever he desires to travel abroad until completion of trial:-
(i) Applicant is directed to furnish all details of his travel
abroad as and when he desires to undertake travel
abroad to the Investigating Officer in writing by giving
all such necessary details of his travel therein, details of
his tickets and visa, details of his stay abroad, details of
his return and also all such necessary details relating to
his mobile phone number which he would be using
14 of 15
2.IA.3323.24 & IA.3359.24.doc
while being abroad, his Email ID and address where he
would be staying while being abroad. This is to ensure
that the whereabouts of the Applicant are known to the
prosecution agency;
(ii) Applicant shall ensure that he appears on all dates of
trial before the Special CBI Court in the Special case
and if on the date of any hearing he is not available for
any reason he shall ensure that his pleader/Advocate
shall appear and seek appropriate exemption from
appearance for his absence on that date in accordance
with law; and
(iii) Liberty to apply to both parties in case of any difficulty.
20. With the above directions, Interim Applications are allowed
in terms of prayer clauses 'a', 'b' and 'c'.
21. Both Interim Application Nos.3323 of 2024 and 3359 of
2024 are disposed.
[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
Ajay
AJAY AJAY TRAMBAK
TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE
UGALMUGALE Date: 2025.08.22
12:03:27 +0530
15 of 15
