HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 10177 of 2025 Court No. - 82 HON'BLE TEJ PRATAP TIWARI, J. 1. The instant application under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to permit him to go abroad for business account, assailing the legality of the impugned order dated 19.12.2024 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.7, Kanpur Nagar in Case Crime No. 200 of 2024, Case No. 2379 of 2024 (State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Sonali Kapur), under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 61, 351(2), 329(4), 340(2) of BNS, Police Station Kakadeo, District Kanpur Nagar, whereby prayer for modifying the condition imposed by learned Court below while granting anticipatory bail vide order dated 09.09.2024 has been rejected. 2. It is noteworthy to mention that vide order dated 09.09.2024, of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 7, Kanpur Nagar, the anticipatory bail application No. 2906 of 2024, has been allowed on the condition that the applicant would not leave the country till the conclusion of trial. 3. At this stage, present case has been filed by the applicant with a prayer that she be permitted to go abroad for business purpose, which is also the Constitutional right of a person. 4. Sri Udai Karan Saxena, learned counsel appearing for opposite party No. 2 has stated that he has no objection if the applicant is permitted to go outside the country for business purpose for a specified period after submitting the itinerary of the programme showing the time period between Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Pranav Tiwary, Shivam Shukla, Sr. Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Padmaker Pandey Sonali Kapur .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) which she should leave the country and also come back to the country. 5. During the course of argument the learned counsel for the applicant has referred the case law in Parvez Noordin Lokhandwalla Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr., (2020)11 SCR 117, in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed: "Having regard to the genesis of the dispute as well as the issue as to whether the appellant is likely to flee from justice if he were to be permitted to travel to the US, we find, on the basis of the previous record of the appellant, that there is no reason or justification to deny him the permission which has been sought to travel to the US for eight weeks. ………………..We accordingly are of the view that the application for modification was incorrectly rejected by the High Court and the appellant ought to have been allowed to travel to the US for a period of eight weeks. We accordingly permit the appellant to do so, subject to his furnishing an undertaking to this Court before the date of travel that he will return to India after the expiry of a period of eight weeks and that he shall be available on all dates of hearing before the court of criminal jurisdiction, unless specifically exempted from personal appearance. The undertaking shall be filed in this court before the appellant undertakes travel. On the return of the appellant after eight weeks and if it becomes necessary for him to travel to the US, the appellant shall apply to the concerned court for permission to travel and any such application shall be considered on its own merits by the competent court. The appellant shall travel only upon the grant of permission and subject to the terms imposed. The passport of the appellant shall be handed over to the appellant to facilitate his travel, subject to the condition that he shall deposit it with the investigating officer immediately on his return. Accordingly, the order of the High Court dated 23 July 2020 shall stand set aside and the appeal shall stand disposed of in terms of the above directions." 6. Heard learned counsel for both the side, learned AGA for the State and also perused the records. 7. It is clear that the learned Court below has granted anticipatory bail to the applicant on 09.09.2024. In the said bail order, several conditions were imposed while granting anticipatory bail. Condition No.3 is relating to not NA528 No. 10177 of 2025 2 leaving the country till conclusion of the trial. 8. Admittedly, applicant-Sonali Kapur is having 95% share of M/s. International Leather Goods according to the partnership deed and keeping in view the rights of a person to travel abroad for the purpose of his/her business or profession and also the anticipatory bail which has already been granted by the Court below, the applicant is permitted to travel abroad subject to the submission of itinerary of the programme/details mentioned therein including the date on which the applicant would leave the country and also the date by which the applicant is suppose to return to India. 9. Subject to the aforesaid conditions and the condition imposed by the learned Court below while granting anticipatory bail vide order dated 09.09.2024, the applicant is allowed to travel abroad for business purpose. 10. With these observations, the order dated 19.12.2024 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.7, Kanpur Nagar in Criminal Misc. Application No. 200 of 2024, (State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Tavi Kapoor @ Anshuman), under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 61, 351(2), 329(4), 340(2) of BNS, Police Station Kakadeo, District Kanpur Nagar, is modified to this extent and, accordingly, the instant application is allowed to that extent with the direction that if the applicant fails to comply with the conditions mentioned hereinabove, the learned Court below will be at liberty to take legal recourse, in accordance with law. October 9, 2025 NSC NA528 No. 10177 of 2025 3 (Tej Pratap Tiwari,J.) Digitally signed by :- NARENDRA SINGH CHAUDHARY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad