( 2026:JHHC:20522 ) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. M. P. No. 1918 of 2026 Naveen Kedia, aged about 54 years, S/o Late Shri K. P. Kedia, presently residing at S-67 Pachsheel Park, PO and PS- Malviya Nagar, District- South Delhi, New Delhi 110017. … … Petitioner Versus State of Jharkhand through Anti-Corruption Bureau, Ranchi. … … Opp. Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Ms. Mrigna Shekhar, Advocate Mr. Shailesh Poddar, Advocate Mr. Anjani Kumar, Advocate For the Opp. Party/ACB : M/s Summet Gadodia, Advocate Ritesh Kr., N. Choubey, Anish Lal, Shruti Shekhar & Nidhi Lall, Advocates --- 03/10.07.2026 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. This petition has been filed under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 seeking modification of the condition of bail as imposed by this Court vide order dated 30.04.2026 in B.A. No.3305 of 2026 to the extent of the temporary release of the Passport along with prayer seeking permission to travel to London. The conditions of bail as imposed by this court are as under: - (i) The petitioner will deposit his passport before the learned court. (ii) One of the bailors would be the present pairvikar of the petitioner. (iii) The other bailor should be his close relative. (iv) The petitioner will attend the court on each and every date and on account of even single default, the bail bond furnished by the petitioner shall stand cancelled. (v) The petitioner will deposit a self-attested copy of his Aadhar Card along with his mobile number before the learned court which he will not change during the pendency of the case without prior permission of the court. (vi) The petitioner shall fully co-operate with the investigation of the case. (vii) The petitioner shall furnish his email ID before the learned court. The prosecution, as and when required, will intimate the petitioner for his appearance for investigation at least three days in advance through email and in case of default of even one day, it will be open to the prosecution to take all coercive steps against the petitioner. ( 2026:JHHC:20522 ) 2 3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner has to travel London from 20.07.2026 to 5th August, 2026 to attend his son’s graduation ceremony and to seek medical opinion about his health. His passport has been deposited before the learned Trial Court while granting bail pursuant to the condition of bail imposed by this court. 4. During the course of the hearing, it transpired that so far the charge-sheet has not been submitted in the criminal case involved in this case and accordingly investigation against the petitioner is going on. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the documents placed on record as contained in Annexure-4 by which 22nd July, 2026 is the Graduation ceremony of his son and further the petitioner wants to seek medical opinion on 30th July, 2026 and the same has been annexed as Annexure-7 whereby there is contemplation of his appointment. 6. The learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner has throughout co-operated with the investigation and has appeared before the concerned authority as and when directed. It was also one of the conditions for grant of bail wherein the petitioner was directed to co- operate with the investigation of the case. She submits that this aspect of the matter has not been disputed in the counter-affidavit. 7. The learned counsel has also submitted that it is once in life time for the petitioner to attend Graduation Ceremony of his son and accordingly, the Passport of the petitioner may be directed to be released for a period of 15 days i.e. from 20th July, 2026 to 5th August, 2026 and further during this petitioner, the petitioner may also seek expert medical opinion about his medical condition in London. 8. The learned counsel has submitted that there is no question of any risk that the petitioner would flee away as the petitioner has his roots and business in India and has no business and no family member is permanently stationed in United Kingdom. 9. Learned counsel for the Opp. Party-ACB has opposed the prayer and has referred to the order dated 29.05.2026 passed by the learned Special Judge, ACB, Ranchi, wherein an application was filed on 22.05.2026 on behalf of the petitioner seeking permission to travel ( 2026:JHHC:20522 ) 3 to London for attending the Graduation Ceremony of his son and to consult a doctor. 10. Learned counsel further submits that the application seeking permission to travel abroad has been rejected by observing that there is a ‘flight risk’ and the Court also took into consideration the previous conduct of the petitioner and also the fact that petitioner is involved in numerous criminal cases total in two number with similar allegation as involved in this case. 11. Learned counsel further submits that at that point of time when petition dated 22.05.2026 was taken up by the learned trial court , it was stated by the petitioner that Graduation Ceremony of his son was to be held in the Month of June, 2026 and that they had an appointment with the Doctor on 5th June, 2026 and now the petitioner is saying that the Graduation Ceremony of his son is to be held on 22nd July, 2026 and he has an appointment with the doctor on 30th July, 2026. 12. Learned counsel has further submitted that the order refusing to grant permission to travel abroad was passed vide order dated 29.05.2026 and the said order is neither under-challenge before this Court nor has been challenged before any other court. 13. He has further submitted that if the permission to travel has been rejected and the order has not been challenged and there is no point to release the passport of the petitioner. 14. Learned counsel has further referred to section Section 6 (2) of the Passport Act, 1967 and has submitted that the Passport Authorities exercise the statutory power with respect to grant permission to travel abroad and Further Section 6 (2) (f) of the said Act has been referred to submit that one of the considerations is that “the proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant are pending before the Criminal Court.” 15. The learned counsel submits that the counter-affidavit has been filed and the same also reveals that release of passport is different from permission to travel and the learned counsel in particular has referred to Paras 19 and 20 of the counter affidavit to submit that the petitioner sought permission from the learned Court to travel abroad from 01.06.2026 to 23.07.2026 and the same was declined by citing sound reasons and now the petitioner is making the same prayer of travelling ( 2026:JHHC:20522 ) 4 abroad before this Court with similar reasons but with different dates which cannot be entertained and, therefore, the present petition with the prayer as made by the petitioner it itself not maintainable . 16. The learned counsel has also referred to Section 483 BNSS, 2023 and has submitted that the Court may impose appropriate condition for grant of bail and one such condition has been imposed is to deposit the Passport and the condition of bail may not be modified and the passport may not be released. 17. He has further referred to Section 485 BNSS and to submit that the bail bond also contains conditions for releasing on bail and if the Passport is permitted to be released and the condition is modified then under such circumstances, that will amount to modifying the conditions of bail. 18. The learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahesh Kumar Agarwal vs. Union of India and Anr. [2025 SCC OnLine SC 2887] and has referred to Para- 10 of the aforesaid judgment and to submit that as per the notification issued by the Government, two things are required to be seen; first, it recognizes that persons facing criminal proceedings are not to be treated as absolutely disentitled to a passport. Instead, it permits such persons to obtain a passport, notwithstanding Section 6(2)(f), where the concerned criminal court has applied its mind and passed an order in relation to issuance or use of the passport and where the applicant furnishes an undertaking to appear before the court as and when required ; Secondly, it structures the exercise of that exemption by tying the validity and use of the passport to the terms of the court's order. Thus, where the court specifies a period for which the passport is to be issued, the passport authority must honour that period. Where the court does not stipulate any period, the notification provides default rules, including issuance for a shorter period, ordinarily one year, in appropriate cases. What the notification does not do is to create a new substantive bar beyond Section 6(2)(f), or to insist that the criminal Court must, in every case, grant a prior blanket permission to "depart from India" for specified dates as a jurisdictional precondition to the very issue or re-issue of a passport. ( 2026:JHHC:20522 ) 5 19. The learned counsel on the basis of findings of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Para-10 of the aforesaid judgment has stated that the petitioner having moved the competent court seeking permission to travel and the said permission having been rejected by an order citing reasons which is not under-challenge, the relief, as prayed for by the petitioner, may not be granted. 20. Learned counsel for the petitioner in rejoinder has submitted that the judgment relied upon by the petitioner deals with renewal of the Passport and the powers of the Trial Court and the concerned passport authorities. So far as the present case is concerned, it is primarily for modification of bail condition regarding deposit of passport in the court and this Court having imposed the bail conditions has exclusive jurisdiction to modify it. She submits that filing of any petition before the learned Trial Court for the aforesaid purpose of foreign travel was a futile exercise and the learned Trial Court had no jurisdiction to pass order with respect to foreign travel of the petitioner, which the learned Court has passed, although the order refusing to permit foreign travel was passed at the instance of the petitioner. 21. The learned counsel submits that in the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the order which has been passed by the learned Court refusing to grant permission for foreign travel which is not under- challenge would not come in the way of this Court to pass an appropriate order as prayed for by the petitioner considering the facts and circumstances of the case. 22. Learned counsel submits that the order of the learned Court will not come in the way to exercise inherent power of this Court under Section 528 BNSS, 2023. 23. This court finds that the bail application of the petitioner was allowed by this Court vide order dated 30.04.2026 wherein one of the conditions was that the petitioner will deposit his Passport before the learned trial Court and shall fully co-operate with the investigation of the case. There is no allegation in the counter-affidavit with regard to non-cooperation by the petitioner after passing the bail order. However, the fact remains that the investigation is not yet complete and charge- sheet has not yet been submitted with respect to the petitioner so far. ( 2026:JHHC:20522 ) 6 24. This Court finds that an application dated 22.05.2026 was filed before the learned Court seeking permission to travel to London for the purposes of attending the Graduation Ceremony of his son which was to be held in the month of June, 2026 and also taking consultancy with the Doctor for which appointment was fixed on 5th June, 2026 and on that ground petitioner wanted to release of his passport and to travel from 1st June, 2026 to 23 June, 2026. The said petition was rejected vide order dated 29.05.2026. The order refusing to allow foreign travel has not been challenged. The operative portion of the order is quoted as under: “Having regards to the aforesaid facts brought by the parties, the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that prosecution/ACB has strong apprehension that the accused/applicant Naveen Kedia will flee. The apprehension of the ACB is based on the overwhelming prima facie evidence showing deep involvement of the applicant Naveen Kedia in commission of the alleged offences as well as the previous conduct of the accused/applicant regarding his defines of court's conditions imposed on him by the ld. Panaji Court on granting of transit bail to him. Further it appears that the applicant has criminal antecedents of involvement in two cases with similar allegations in the State of Chhattisgarh. Further from perusal of the copy of letter dated 21.05.2026 regarding confirmation of appointment at Cromwell Hospital it appears that the medical ground as pleaded by the applicant does not appears to be very serious and life threatening and truly it is nothing but an appointment for consultation with a doctor. Therefore, in view of above facts and circumstances, apprehension of the I.O. that the applicant will flee, nature of the prima facie incriminating materials available on the record, criminal antecedent of the accused/applicant and the conduct of the accused Naveen Kedia, I am not inclined to grant him permission to travel to London as prayed in the aforesaid application. Accordingly, the application is hereby disposed of as rejected.” 25. Now on the same ground, but with a different date of Graduation Ceremony of his son, as 22.07.2026, and appointment with doctor thereafter, this petition has been filed seeking release of passport and permission to travel abroad. ( 2026:JHHC:20522 ) 7 26. Thus, the learned court took totality of the facts and refused to grant permission to travel to London and rejected the petition. The learned court considered the apprehension of the investigating officer of the case that the petitioner would flee, apart from the other circumstances and past conduct of this petitioner. 27. The past conduct of the petitioner has been elaborated in para 9 to 18 of the counter affidavit which shows that the petitioner did not abide with the conditions of transit interim bail granted to petitioner for a period of four days from 09.01.2026 expiring on 12.01.2026 by the court in the State of Goa. 28. Admittedly, the order dated 29.05.2026 has not been challenged though the order has been placed on record. 29. This Court finds that the prayer seeking permission to travel to London was rejected on merits considering that the apprehension that the petitioner would flee away and also the previous conduct of the petitioner where the petitioner had attempted to violate the terms of transit bail and the fact that criminal case with similar allegation in the State of Chhatishgarh. 30. The petitioner having failed to seek permission to travel abroad has now moved this Court seeking modification of the conditions of bail as imposed vide bail order dated 30.04.2026 and has prayed for release of Passport and also permission for travelling London from 20th July, 2026 to 5th August, 2026. 31. This Court is of the considered view that the petitioner’s application before the learned trial Court seeking permission to travel to London having been rejected by the learned Court by a detailed order which has not been challenged, no useful purpose will be served by releasing the Passport in favour of the petitioner / modify the conditions of bail. 32. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner, when confronted with the order dated 29.05.2026 having not been challenged, that the said order dated 29.05.2026 passed by the learned trial court refusing to grant permission to foreign travel itself is without jurisdiction and is to be simply ignored, is not acceptable to this Court. 33. This Court is of the considered view that the order dated 29.05.2026 cannot be ignored or brushed aside while considering the ( 2026:JHHC:20522 ) 8 prayer made in this petition seeking permission of foreign travel and release of passport. 34. The past conduct of the petitioner as mentioned in the counter affidavit is undisputed and the past conduct of the petitioner does not inspire confidence. There is a risk that the petitioner may flee away. The stage of the case is also relevant which is at the stage of investigation as chargesheet has not been submitted so far. 35. The permission to foreign travel having been rejected by the learned trial court vide unchallenged order dated 29.05.2026 by citing numerous reasons and admittedly the charge sheet has not yet been submitted so far and the investigation is still going on, this Court is not inclined to allow this petition seeking release of passport and seeking permission to foreign travel to London as prayed for in this petition. 36. This petition is accordingly dismissed. 37. Let this order be communicated to the court concerned through FAX/e-mail. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) 10.07.2026 Uploaded sandeep/-