The Bombay High Court on Friday modified its earlier anticipatory bail order in the Rs. 2,200-crore CBI special case involving businessman Kirti Vishwanath Kedia, deleting the condition requiring him to surrender his passport and seek prior court permission every time he travels abroad.
The bench of Justice Milind N. Jadhav, came on two interim applications filed by Kedia, who is Accused in CBI Special Case No. 1643 of 2021. The Central Bureau of Investigation (EOB) had charged him under Sections 120-B, 420, 468, and 471 of the IPC in connection with a large-scale economic offence.
Dr. Sujay Kantawala, appearing for the businessman, argued that the bail conditions imposed by the High Court in its December 21, 2022 order—specifically, (c) surrender of passport and (d) obtaining permission from the CBI Special Court before leaving the country—were “onerous” and curtailed his right to free travel.
Dr. Kantawala contended that the businessman was never arrested during investigation and had fully cooperated with the CBI. Since March 2023, he had undertaken 12 foreign trips for business, family, and medical reasons, always complying with court directions. He suffers from kidney ailments and requires frequent short-notice medical check-ups in Singapore, making repeated court permissions impractical and disruptive.
Dr. Kantawala relied on the Supreme Court’s 2024 ruling in Tarsem Lal v. Directorate of Enforcement clarified that once an accused appears before the trial court post-cognizance, the requirement under Section 88 of CrPC suffices, and additional bail-like restrictions need not be imposed.
Opposing the plea, CBI counsel Kuldeep Patil contended that the conditions were essential, given the magnitude of the alleged fraud—amounting to Rs. 2,200 crores—and the risk of the accused absconding. However, he conceded that Kedia had always complied with travel conditions in the past and returned to India after every trip.
The court noted that the investigation was complete, and Kedia had cooperated fully. The accused had strong family, business, and property ties in Mumbai, reducing the likelihood of flight risk. Medical exigencies, particularly kidney treatment in Singapore, required flexibility.
The Court held that compelling the applicant to repeatedly seek court orders for travel “results in loss of business opportunities, cancellation of medical appointments, and imposes a fetter on his fundamental right to travel.”
While deleting the earlier passport surrender and permission requirements, the Court imposed new safeguards stating that Kedia must furnish complete details of travel, tickets, stay, contact numbers, and email ID to the investigating officer before each trip. He must appear before the trial court on all hearing dates or ensure his lawyer seeks exemption. Both parties may approach the court again if difficulties arise.
Accordingly, the interim applications were allowed, and the High Court directed the immediate return of Kedia’s passport.
Case Details
Case Title: Kirti Vishwanath Kedia Versus CBI
Case No.: Interim Application No. 3323 Of 2024 In Anticipatory Bail Application No. 960 Of 2022
Date: 22/08/2025
Counsel For Petitioner: Dr. Sujay Kantawala
Counsel For Respondent: Mr. Kuldeep S. Patil
