19 June 2025 Civil Appeals >> Civil & Consumer Law  

Gautam Navlakha, an applicant/accused currently out on bail, sought the court's permission to permanently relocate to Delhi from Mumbai. His primary reasons included being a Delhi native, unemployment, financial dependence on friends and family, and the difficulty of sustaining life in Mumbai. He also cited his elderly sister's ill health and assured the court of his presence for all trial dates.

The State strongly opposed the application, detailing the case facts and the accused's role, requesting the application's rejection.

The court reviewed the application, the State's response, and the entire record, and heard arguments from both sides. The court noted that the High Court, while granting bail, had stipulated that Navlakha could not leave the Bombay High Court's jurisdiction without prior permission from the Special Judge (NIA), Greater Mumbai. The court acknowledged that it had previously granted temporary travel permissions to Navlakha when his reasons were deemed appropriate.

However, the court distinguished between temporary travel and permanent relocation. It clarified that the High Court's order allowed the trial court discretion to permit travel outside its jurisdiction for fitting reasons, but it did not grant the trial court the authority to allow the applicant to reside permanently outside the Bombay High Court's jurisdiction.

Therefore, the court concluded that since the High Court had not granted such liberty to either the applicant or the trial court, the application was unnecessary and deserved to be rejected. The application, Exhibit-1202, was consequently rejected.