W.P.(CRL) 3845/2025 Page 1 of 16

$~J-

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Judgment delivered on: 29.05.2026

+ W.P.(CRL) 3845/2025 & CRL.M.A. 34762/2025, CRL.M.A.

4526/2026

SHABIR MOMIN & ANR. .....Petitioners

Through: Mr. Jayant K. Sud, Sr. Advocate with

Mr. Samarjit G. Pattnaik, Mr. Sahib

Kochhar, Ms. Kashish Seth, Mr.

Gaurav Vutts, Mr. Aryan Mishra,

Advocates for P-1.

Mr. Ujjawal Anand Sharma with Mr.

Prashant Sivarajan, Mr. Tushar Saigal

and Ms. Shweta Divedi, Advocates for

P-2.

versus

STATE NCT OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents

Through: Mr. Amol Sinha, ASC for State with

Mr. Kshitiz Garg, Mr. Ashvini Kumar,

Mr. Manan Wadhwa and Mr. Nitish

Dhawan, Advocates.

Mr Hrishikesh Baruah, Mr. Kumar

Kshitij, Mr Sundeep Goel, Mr.

Utkarsh Dwivedi, Ms. Pragya

Agarwal, Ms. Nishtha Sachan, Mr.

Yashaswy Ghosh and Ms. Simran

Dhingra, Advocate for R-2 and 3.

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI

J U D G M E N T

ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J.

By way of the present petition filed under Articles 226 and 227

of the Constitution of India read with section 528 of the Bharatiya

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’) the petitioners seek setting-

W.P.(CRL) 3845/2025 Page 2 of 16

aside of order dated 06.11.2025 passed by the learned Chief Judicial

Magistrate, New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi

(‘CJM’), whereby travel restrictions have been imposed upon the

petitioners requiring them to seek prior permission of the learned

Magistrate before travelling abroad.

2. Notice on the present petition was issued on 21.11.2025; pursuant to

which Status Report dated 06.02.2026 has been filed by the State; and

Reply dated 29.11.2025 alongwith an additional affidavit dated

10.03.2026 have been filed by respondents Nos. 2 and 3. Written

submissions have also been filed by the petitioners and respondents Nos.

2 and 3.

3. The court has heard Mr. Jayant K. Sud, learned senior counsel for

petitioner No.1, Mr. Ujjawal Anand Sharma, learned counsel for

petitioner No.2, Mr. Amol Sinha, learned ASC for the State, as well as

Mr. Hrishikesh Baruah, learned counsel appearing for respondents Nos.

2 and 3.

B

RIEF FACTS

4. The brief factual background necessary for deciding the present petition

is set-out below:

4.1. Vidé order dated 23.03.2021 passed by the learned CMM, New

Delhi District, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi (‘CMM’), the

petitioners herein were granted bail in CC No. 10/2019 arising from

case FIR No. 337/2016 dated 27.04.2016 registered under sections

420/406/422/424/409/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’)

at P.S.: Vasant Kunj South, Delhi. Consequent upon completion of

W.P.(CRL) 3845/2025 Page 3 of 16

investigation, chargesheet dated 21.12.2018 was filed under

sections 420/120B of the IPC.

4.2. Upon an apprehension that the petitioners would abscond, in

September 2024, the authorized representative of the complainant

company/respondent No. 2 filed an application before the learned

CJM praying that restrictions be placed upon the petitioners

requiring them to seek prior permission of the court before

travelling outside India.

4.3. Vidé order dated 15.02.2025, on the complainant’s application, the

learned CJM introduced the condition directing the petitioners to

take prior permission of the court before leaving the country.

4.4. Aggrieved by the aforementioned condition imposed, the

petitioners filed revision petitions before the learned Sessions

Court. Vidé order dated 28.02.2025, the learned Sessions Court

stayed the operation of order dated 15.02.2025 passed by the

learned CJM qua petitioner No. 2; and opined as under:

“Suffice to note herein that at the time of initial bail

order, no condition was imposed on applicant/accused no. 3

Vikramjit Roy, I am of the opinion that the Ld. Magistrate

Court have no power to review its own order passed earlier

as such power is vested with the Sessions Court or by the

Hon'ble High Court.

“In view of the above observations, the operation of

order dated 15.02.2025 is stayed till further orders. At the

same time, one more aspect, to my mind, is required to be

considered that trial should not suffer in any manner owing

to the absence of the accused. Thus, it can be said that in the

fitness of things intimation of going abroad can be given by

the applicant/accused before hand, in case of any foreign

W.P.(CRL) 3845/2025 Page 4 of 16

visit. Needless to say that the accused No. 3 shall give due

instructions to his advocate to appear.

* * * * *

“Ld. Counsel for the revisionist submits that this

condition would again tentamount to a condition in the bail

order.

“I shall dispose off the revision petition on the NDOH

and this order is only till the interregnum.”

(emphasis supplied)

4.5. In view of the above, vidé order dated 05.04.2025 learned Sessions

Court stayed the operation of order dated 15.02.2025 passed by the

learned CJM qua petitioner No. 1 as well; and observed as under:

“I have already granted the similar relief to co-

accused Vikramjit Roy. Considering the same, Shabir Momin

is granted permission to travel abroad on the same terms and

conditions as incorporated in order dated 28.02.2025.

“In view of the above observations, the operation of

order dated 15.02.2025 is stayed till further orders. At the

same time, one more aspect, to my mind, is required to be

considered that trial should not suffer in any manner owing to

the absence of the accused. Thus, it can be said that in the

fitness of things intimation of going abroad can be given by

the applicant/accused before hand, in case of any foreign

visit. Needless to say that the revisionist shall give due

instructions to his advocate to appear.”

(emphasis supplied)

4.6. Subsequently, vidé its judgment dated 24.07.2025, the learned

Sessions Court set-aside order dated 15.02.2025; and directed the

learned CJM to consider the application filed by the complainant

afresh taking into account the entire factual background of the

matter.

W.P.(CRL) 3845/2025 Page 5 of 16

4.7. Pursuant to the aforementioned directions of the learned Sessions

Court, and while taking into account that the condition directing the

petitioners to seek prior permission before travelling abroad “does

not find a mention in the bail order” and acknowledging that the

“Court has already become functus officio, qua the bail order and

the same cannot be revisited in view of the settled principles of law

on the subject”, vidé impugned order dated 06.11.2025, the learned

CJM proceeded to opine as under:

“It is observed that in every bail order passed by any

Court of law, certain conditions are imposed, inter-alia, to

secure the appearance of the accused for effective and timely

proceedings in the matter. The aforesaid import and purpose

of a bail order expressly or impliedly captured in the

conditions imposed can be achieved effectively only so long

as the Accused persons are on the Indian soil. In the event the

accused travels abroad, he leaves jurisdiction of the Indian

authorities/ Courts, which may delay/prejudice the

proceedings in future. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution

guarantees, inter alia, right to life and liberty, which includes

the right to free movement and travel. The jurisprudence on

the subject is not in dispute. However, in order to strike a

balance inter-se the need for timely proceedings before this

Court, especially in a matter which is subjudice as also the

rights of the accused to travel beyond the Indian soil, it is

ideal for the accused persons to seek a prior permission from

the Court before leaving the country, which expectation

cannot even remotely be construed as inhibiting the rights

of the accused for free travel. Accordingly, the Order dated

23.03.2021 imposing bail conditions with respect to the

accused persons viz. Shabbir Momin and Vikramjit Roy as

passed by the Ld. Predecessor is hereby clarified to the extent

that the said accused persons shall seek permission prior to

their travel abroad. This Order is clarificatory in import and

W.P.(CRL) 3845/2025 Page 6 of 16

effect and clearly not in the nature of review, of the previous

relevant orders. Application is accordingly disposed of.”

(emphasis supplied)

4.8. Arising from the above position, the petitioners herein are seeking

setting-aside of order dated 06.11.2025 passed by the learned CJM.

S

UBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS

5. In support of the petitioners’ case, the following principal submissions

have been made:

5.1. Firstly, it has been emphasized, that the original bail order dated

23.03.2021 passed by the learned CMM did not contain any travel

restrictions; and the learned Magistrate had no power to review or

modify the original order first by order dated 15.02.2025 and then

finally by way of impugned order dated 06.11.2025. It has been

submitted, that the power to modify bail conditions is vested

exclusively in the Sessions Court and the High Court under section

439(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘Cr.P.C.’), and

not in the Magistrate. Therefore, it has been submitted, that the

subsequent introduction of a condition which was not a part of the

original order, under the guise of a ‘clarification’ is entirely

untenable since it is settled law that there exists no provision in the

Cr.P.C. which empowers a Magistrate to ‘clarify’ a bail order let

alone introduce a new bail condition by way of a so-called

clarification.

5.2. It has been argued that section 362 of the Cr.P.C. bars criminal

courts from altering or reviewing final orders passed by them except

W.P.(CRL) 3845/2025 Page 7 of 16

to correct clerical or arithmetical errors. Attention in this behalf is

drawn to section 362 of the Cr.P.C., which reads as under:

362. Court not to alter judgment.—Save as otherwise

provided by this Code or by any other law for the time being

in force, no Court, when it has signed its judgment or final

order disposing of a case, shall alter or review the same

except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error.

5.3. Secondly, it has been submitted, that order dated 15.02.2025 which

introduced the condition of seeking prior permission before

travelling abroad, was initially stayed by the learned Sessions Court

vidé orders dated 28.02.2025 and 05.04.2025; and was

subsequently set-aside vidé judgment dated 24.07.2025, remanding

the matter for fresh consideration to the learned CJM. Despite this,

the learned CJM proceeded to pass impugned order dated

06.11.2025, purportedly “clarifying” the original bail order of

23.03.2021, which was an impermissible attempt to impose new

conditions under the guise of clarifying order dated 23.03.2021,

bypassing the setting-aside of order dated 15.02.2025 by the

learned Sessions Court.

5.4. Thirdly, going into the genesis of the issue, it has been argued that

the apprehension of the complainants is entirely unfounded and

baseless. The petitioners maintain that they have had an

unblemished record of several years in the proceedings before the

learned Magistrate, since they have been represented at almost

every hearing, either in person or via video-conferencing or by

counsel. It has been argued that it is this baseless and

W.P.(CRL) 3845/2025 Page 8 of 16

uncorroborated apprehension of the complainants that the

petitioners are a flight risk, that has resulted in the learned CJM

imposing the said travel restriction apparently to ensure timely

proceedings, and requiring that the petitioners should remain on

“Indian soil”. Attention has also been drawn to the provision

introduced by section 530 of the BNSS, which permits trials and

proceedings to be held by electronic mode, satisfactorily addresses

the learned CJM’s concern of the trial getting delayed if the

petitioners temporarily leave the country for a few days. It has been

further submitted that the complainant’s “apprehension” and

actions constitute to harassment and abuse of process.

S

UBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE STATE

6. In Status Report dated 06.02.2026, filed upon a direction of this court,

in relation to the dates on which the petitioners travelled abroad, the

State has said that the petitioners travelled abroad multiple times without

obtaining prior permission from the court, thereby violating order dated

06.11.2025. The State has submitted, that according to the travel history

obtained from the Foreigners Regional Registration Office, petitioner

Shabir Momin has violated the court orders on 02 occasions (travelling

from 15.10.2025 to 24.11.2025 and from 26.11.2025 to 19.01.2026),

while petitioner Vikramjit Roy has violated the orders on 05 occasions

between November 2025 and January 2026.

7. The State has also pointed- out that the investigating officer had received

a complaint on 23.12.2025 from the complainant alleging such

violations.

W.P.(CRL) 3845/2025 Page 9 of 16

8. However, in the course of its submissions the State has not expressed

any serious concern regarding the petitioners’ conduct; and has, on

several occasions during the pendency of the present writ petition,

expressed its ‘no-objection’ to the petitioners being permitted to travel

abroad, considering their past conduct and since there is no allegation

that the petitioners violated the conditions imposed on them previously.

The State has also not alleged that the petitioners have been errant in

participating in the trial court proceedings.

S

UBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS NOS. 2 & 3

9. Respondents Nos. 2 and 3, have however vociferously opposed the

prayers made in the present petition, premised on the following principal

submissions:

9.1. Firstly, the said respondents have alleged that the petitioners have

suppressed material facts, including the fact that they had obtained

new passports without informing the passport authorities about the

pendency of the criminal proceedings against them; and that the

petitioners have violated court orders by travelling abroad on

numerous occasions without taking prior permission from the

learned Magistrate. The said respondents have further alleged that

the affidavit of petitioner No.1 filed in the present petition was

attested when petitioner No.1 was apparently not in the country;

and that in a different writ petition, both petitioners’ affidavits have

been attested while they were not present in the country. It has

further been claimed that the petitioners have suppressed the fact

that they are permanently residing with a Golden Pass Visa in the

W.P.(CRL) 3845/2025 Page 10 of 16

United Arab Emirates, and not in India. Respondents Nos. 2 and 3

have accordingly contended, that such gross suppression of facts

warrants dismissal of the present petition.

9.2. Secondly, it has been submitted that impugned order dated

06.11.2025 has been passed by the learned CJM well within her

powers, since modification, alteration or addition in bail conditions

can always be made by a Magistrate; and that therefore, it is

incorrect to suggest that the impugned order amounts to a review of

the original bail order. It has been argued that the bail order passed

by the learned Magistrate was interlocutory in nature, and that

conditions of bail can be changed by a Magistrate depending on

circumstances of a particular case. To support this contention, the

said respondents have placed reliance on Ramadhar Sahu vs. The

State of Madhya Pradesh

1

and other judgments to submit that

section 362 Cr.P.C. does not prohibit modification of bail

conditions. They have further asserted that impugned order dated

06.11.2025 was merely a ‘clarification’ of the original bail order

dated 23.03.2021, and not a review of that order; and that the travel

restrictions were imposed vidé the impugned order after

considering the petitioners’ conviction under section 138 of the

Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 (‘NI Act’), in a different case as

well as the fact that co-accused Sanju Kapoor also had similar travel

restrictions in his bail conditions.

1

Order dated 16.10.2023 made in SLP (Crl.) No.11130/2023

W.P.(CRL) 3845/2025 Page 11 of 16

9.3. Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 have also elucidated upon their

apprehension that the petitioners are a flight risk, pointing-out that

vidé judgment of conviction dated 06.09.2024 passed by the learned

JMFC, Gurugram District Courts, Haryana (‘JMFC’) in CIS No.

NACT/8703/2016, the petitioners (alongwith other accused

persons) stand convicted for the offence under section 138 of the

NI Act; and vidé sentencing order dated 07.09.2024 they have been

sentenced to simple imprisonment of 01 year and have also been

directed to pay compensation to the tune of ₹28,50,00,000/- to the

complainant within 02 months, with a default sentence of simple

imprisonment for 30 days. It is stated that the said sentence was

suspended vidé order dated 07.09.2024 to enable the convicts to file

an appeal. The said respondents have accordingly expressed their

fear that the petitioners might flee the country, particularly since

they have not deposited 20% of the compensation amount as

directed by the learned Sessions Court in the appeal against their

conviction under section 138 of the NI Act. They have argued that

the travel restrictions placed were justified and supported by

precedents including Barun Chandra Thakur vs. Ryan Augustine

Pinto & Anr.

2

2

2019 SCC Online SC 1899

W.P.(CRL) 3845/2025 Page 12 of 16

DISCUSSION & CONCLUSIONS

10. Upon a conspectus of the submissions made on behalf of the parties and

based on the records, the considerations that weigh with this court are as

follows:

10.1. Absence of travel restriction in the original bail order: The

original bail order dated 23.03.2021 passed by the learned CMM

did not impose any requirement that the petitioners were to take

prior permission of the court to travel abroad. This is an

undisputed fact. Therefore, the condition of travel restrictions

sought to be enforced through subsequent orders was not part of

the original bail conditions.

10.2. Magistrate’s lack of power of review: It is a well-established

principle of criminal jurisprudence that criminal courts do not

possess inherent power of review in the absence of any express

statutory provision. Section 362 Cr.P.C. categorically provides

that once a court has signed its judgment or final order, it shall not

alter or review the same except to correct a clerical or arithmetical

error. Order dated 15.02.2025, by which the learned CJM imposed

travel restrictions, was clearly in the nature of a review or

modification of the original bail order dated 23.03.2021 since the

court was inserting a new condition by way of the travel

restrictions in the original bail order. The learned CJM had no

jurisdiction to undertake such an exercise. This court notes that for

the aforesaid reason, vidé its judgment dated 24.07.2025 passed in

revisional proceedings, the learned Sessions Court had correctly

W.P.(CRL) 3845/2025 Page 13 of 16

set-aside order dated 15.02.2025 and remanded the matter for

fresh consideration to the learned CJM.

10.3. Effect of remand and subsequent “clarification”: Once, vidé

judgment dated 24.07.2025 the learned Sessions Court had set-

aside order dated 15.02.2025 passed by the learned CJM; and had

remanded the matter back to the learned CJM, the legal effect was

that order dated 15.02.2025 ceased to exist. Upon remand, the

learned Magistrate was required to consider the matter afresh in

accordance with law.

10.4. However, by way of impugned order dated 06.11.2025 the learned

CJM has purported to “clarify” the original bail order dated

23.03.2021 by imposing the travel restrictions requiring the

petitioners to seek prior permission from court before travelling

abroad. To characterise the insertion of a new bail condition as a

“clarification” was clearly a misnomer. An order can only ‘clarify’

an ambiguity or imprecision in what may have been said in an

order. When the original order dated 23.03.2021 did not contain

any requirement of obtaining prior permission to travel abroad,

there was nothing to clarify on that count; and a new condition

could not have been added in view of the bar contained in section

362 Cr.P.C.

10.5. It must also be noticed, that by way of the impugned order, and

professing to “clarify” the original bail order dated 23.03.2021

(since order dated 15.02.2025 had been set-aside by the learned

Sessions Court), the learned CJM has in effect reinstated the same

W.P.(CRL) 3845/2025 Page 14 of 16

condition that had been set-aside by the learned Sessions Court, in

an exercise that circumvents the revisional court's order and

effectively nullifies the remand.

10.6. Jurisdictional limitation under section 439(1)(b) Cr.P.C.: To

reiterate, under section 439(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. the power to set-

aside or modify conditions imposed in a bail order passed by a

learned Magistrate is expressly vested in the High Court or the

Court of Session. A Magistrate does not possess parallel powers

to modify conditions of bail once granted. While respondents Nos.

2 and 3 have cited precedent suggesting that bail conditions can be

varied, those principles apply only to superior courts exercising

powers under section 439 Cr.P.C., not to Magistrates seeking to

alter their own orders. The impugned order was therefore also

passed without jurisdiction and is non-est in law.

10.7. Condonation of infraction: Having held that the impugned order

was non-est in law, and based on the status report filed by the

State, this court notes that the petitioners did travel abroad on

multiple occasions without seeking permission from the learned

Magistrate while order dated 06.11.2025 imposing the travel

restraint was still in force. The court is informed that petitioner

No. 1 travelled abroad on 02 occasions between 15.10.2025 to

24.11.2025 and from 26.11.2025 to 19.01.2026; and petitioner

No.2 travelled abroad on 05 occasions between November 2025

and January 2026. However, the court also cannot ignore the

W.P.(CRL) 3845/2025 Page 15 of 16

subsequent conduct of the petitioners in its entirety. The record

shows that in the course of the present proceedings:

10.7.1. The petitioners have travelled abroad on multiple occasions

after taking permission of this court and have complied with

all conditions imposed;

10.7.2. The petitioners have returned to India each time without

fail;

10.7.3. The petitioners have maintained a fair record of appearance

over several years of pendency of the proceedings before

the learned Magistrate, either in person or via video-

conferencing or through counsel.

10.7.4. In particular, considering that the learned CJM’s order

dated 06.11.2025 imposing the travel restraints was itself

passed without jurisdiction, and was accordingly non-est,

this court is persuaded to condone the infraction of the

orders of the learned CJM by the petitioners. In the opinion

of this court, technical violation of an order that was

jurisdictionally flawed, coupled with the petitioners’

consistent compliance with court processes and their

voluntary return to India after each foreign travel, does not

warrant any punitive action against the petitioners,

especially since no actual prejudice appears to have been

caused to any party in the trial.

11. As a sequitur and for the reasons stated above, this court is persuaded to

allow the present petition.

W.P.(CRL) 3845/2025 Page 16 of 16

12. Accordingly, impugned order dated 06.11.2025 passed by the learned

Chief Judicial Magistrate, New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts,

New Delhi, is hereby set-aside.

13. It is directed that the petitioners shall remain bound by the conditions

imposed in the original bail order dated 23.03.2021, without any

requirement to seek prior permission of the court to travel abroad.

14. However, by way of atonement for the infraction of the orders by the

petitioners as noted above, this court directs the petitioners to pay costs

of ₹2,00,000/- each to Friendicoes SECA, No.271 & 273, Defence

Colony Flyover Market, Jungpura, New Delhi within 02 weeks.

15. The petitioners are directed to place on record proof of payment of costs

within 01 week thereafter.

16. The Registry is directed to re-list the matter if costs are not paid as

directed.

17. The petition stands disposed-of, in the above terms.

18. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed- of.

ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J

MAY 29, 2026

ds