[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Chirag Shah vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:6452
1 WP-8863-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE JAI KUMAR PILLAI
ON THE 11th OF MARCH, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 8863 of 2026
CHIRAG SHAH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Naman Jain - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Ayushyaman Choudhary - Govt. Advocate for the
respondents/State.
ORDER
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been
preferred by the petitioner for grant of permission to him to travel abroad
from 19.03.2026 up to 02.04.2026.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there are numerous
FIRs registered against the petitioner in respect of a single
transaction. However, in all those cases the petitioner has been granted the
benefit of bail. Since, there are a number of FIRs the conclusion of trial in
the matter shall take a considerable period of time. It is submitted that the
petitioner had previously been granted permission by competent Courts to
travel abroad and has complied with all the conditions and had returned to
India within the stipulated time period. The petitioner holds a passport, U.S.
Visa and confirmed return tickets for the proposed travel. He does not have
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:6452
2 WP-8863-2026
any intention of absconding. He is willing to furnish security and abide by
conditions as may be imposed by this Court while granting him the
permission. The petitioner has never misused the liberty of bail granted to
him.
3. In support of his contentions, he has also placed reliance upon a
decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Satwant Singh
Sawhney v. D. Ramarathnam, Assistant Passport Officer, New Delhi and
others reported in AIR 1967 SC 1836 and decision dated 09.04.2019 in case
o f Satish Chandra Verma v. Union of India & others , Civil Appeal
No.3802/2019 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.1655 of 2019); and recent
decision dated 31.03.2022 of this Court in case of Jagdish Arora S/o Late
Mohan Lal Arora & another v. Union of India, Miscellaneous Criminal Case
No.4923/2022, Principal Seat at Jabalpur as well as another decision dated
19.09.2016 rendered by of this Court in the case of Chandanmal S/o
Rajmahal Chordia v. Suryakant S/o Manakchand Johari, Miscellaneous
Criminal Case No.2360/2016, Indore Bench.
4. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent /
State, on the other hand, opposes the prayer.
5. Having considered the rival submissions and on perusal of the
documents filed on record as well as looking to the charges levelled against
the petitioner and the fact that he has already been granted bail by the
competent Courts in all the cases registered against him and that earlier also
he had been granted permission to travel abroad and after such travel he has
returned back to India so also the decisions cited by learned counsel for the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:6452
3 WP-8863-2026
petitioner and looking to the fact that there is no certainty of conclusion of
the trials in the near future, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner has
made out a case for grant of permission to travel out of the country for
fifteen days from 19.03.2026 up to 02.04.2026. This interim order is passed
on the account that the petitioner discloses before this Court that he is not
required by any of the Courts between the dates from 19.03.2026 up to
02.04.2026.
6 . The petitioner is permitted to travel abroad from 19.03.2026 up to
02.04.2026 on the following conditions:-
"1. The petitioner shall deposit Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) of
Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) of any nationalized Bank in the
name of any of the Court in which the proceedings are pending against
him and the same shall be returned to him after he returns back to
India:
2. The petitioner shall furnish an undertaking that he shall return back
to India on 14.11.2025 i.e. on or within five days from the date when
he leaves India, if he fails to do so, the Court concerned may proceed
to forfeit the aforesaid amount."
7. The petition is accordingly allowed and disposed of.
(JAI KUMAR PILLAI)
JUDGE
Shilpa
