$~22 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010682402025 + CRL.M.C. 6546/2025 MURARI MIRCHANDANI .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Vishal Gosain, Sr. Adv. with Mr Pranav Das and Mr. Tushar Sharma, Advs. along with petitioner versus THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Naresh Kumar Chahar, APP with Mr. Shivam Mishra, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA O R D E R % 24.09.2026 1. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking setting aside of the onerous conditions imposed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class-09, South East, Saket Court, New Delhi [‘Trial Court’] in Criminal Case No. 88019/2016 vide order dated 09.06.2025 [‘impugned order’], whereby the learned Trial Court directed that the petitioner shall seek permission before leaving the country and that a copy of the petitioner’s passport shall be deposited with the Court. 2. The impugned order reads as under: “Heard on application. Applicant/accused has filed the present application seeking permission for renewal of his passport stating that his passport is going to expire on This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 30/09/2026 at 11:31:43 30.06.2025. It is also submitted by applicant/accused in his application that permission may be granted for renewal of his passport for the period of minimum 10 years as the trial would take time to conclude, to avoid filing repeated applications before this court. Copy of passport is also annexed with application. Perusal of the record shows that complainant in the present case has already been examined and matter is at the stage of remaining prosecution witnesses. As already noted above, charge sheet has already been filed and accused has \ already been enlarged on bail, therefore, there appears to be no reason why NOC should not be granted to accused as the same may amount to infringement of fundamental right of accused to travel. Hence, the present application, in the interest of justice, is allowed. This court has no objection if the passport of the applicant is renewed by the concerned passport authority for a period of five years, as per rules. However, the applicant/accused is directed to deposit the copy of the renewed passport on court record as and when the same is renewed. He shall not leave the country without prior permission of the court. Application is accordingly disposed off. Copy of order be given dasti.” 3. The petitioner is aggrieved by the portion of the impugned order which imposes the following condition: “However, the applicant/accused is directed to deposit the copy of the renewed passport on court record as and when the same is renewed. He shall not leave the country without prior permission of the court.” 4. Mr. Vishal Gosain, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, states that the subject FIR was registered on 20.01.2012; the petitioner was earlier granted an anticipatory bail on 04.02.2012 followed by a regular bail on 15.01.2014. He states that the petitioner duly joined the investigation and has also been regularly appearing in trial. 4.1. He states that the petitioner has been compliant with all the conditions of the regular bail imposed on 15.01.2014. He states that, due to the prolonged trial, the petitioner's passport had expired, and he has been This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 30/09/2026 at 11:31:43 seeking permission from the learned Trial Court to renew it from time to time. He refers to orders dated 19.12.2019 and 09.06.2022. 4.2. He states that, however, on 09.06.2025, when the petitioner applied to the learned Trial Court for permission to renew his passport, the learned Trial Court imposed the impugned condition without any change in circumstances. He submits that by way of this petition, the petitioner only seeks setting aside of this new condition, which is extremely onerous. 4.3. He states that the petitioner undertakes to duly inform the trial court prior to leaving the country and to inform about his return. 5. Mr. Naresh Kumar Chahar, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, confirms on instructions from the Investigating Officer that the petitioner has been regularly appearing at trial. He also confirms that this condition imposed vide impugned order did not exist in the orders passed since 2012. 6. Having considered the facts of this case, this Court is satisfied with the contentions of the petitioner that no ground was made out for imposition of the impugned condition, extracted at paragraph 3 above, by the trial court and the said impugned condition is accordingly set aside. 7. The petitioner, however, is directed to inform the learned Trial Court one [1] week prior to leaving the country and also to inform the Court on his return, within one week. 8. With the aforesaid directions, the petition stands allowed. 9. The digitally signed copy of this order, duly uploaded on the official website of the Delhi High Court, www.delhihighcourt.nic.in, shall be treated as a certified copy of the order for the purpose of ensuring compliance. No This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 30/09/2026 at 11:31:43 physical copy of the order shall be insisted upon by any authority/entity or litigant. MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J SEPTEMBER 24, 2026/hp/aa This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 30/09/2026 at 11:31:43