Authority: High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur

Order Date: 24.09.2026

Case Overview

  • Petition filed by Amit Mittal, son of Late Rajendra Kumar Mittal, aged about 58, residing at Flat No. Tg‑2 B/4, Garden Estate, Gurgaon, Haryana, challenging the order dated 01.09.2026 of the Special Judge, ACB/EOW, Raipur, which rejected his application for permission to travel abroad and for the return of his passport.
  • The petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
  • Amit Mittal is the Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer of A2Z Infra Engineering Limited, a publicly listed company.
  • He is on trial for FIR No.0044/2024 registered at Police Station Economic Offences Wing / Anti‑Corruption Bureau, Raipur, involving offences under IPC Sections 120B, 467, 471 and PC Act Sections 7(b) and 8.
  • He was released on bail on 03.07.2026 in M.Cr.C. No.4981/2026 with the condition to surrender his passport and not leave India without court permission.
  • The petitioner sought permission to travel abroad from 27.09.2026 to 16.10.2026 to meet prospective investors, lenders and strategic partners for business expansion, citing prior business trips and attached invitation from a UK company.
  • State of Chhattisgarh, represented by Additional Advocate General Ashish Shukla, opposed the petition, emphasizing the seriousness of the alleged economic offence involving approximately Rs 34.06 crore received by the company under overtime/bonus heads and the risk of the petitioner evading trial.
  • The State argued that other directors could attend the meetings, and therefore travel should not be permitted.
  • The petitioner offered to furnish a surety of Rs 4 crore, but the Court later required a higher security.
  • The Court examined the legal position on the right to travel abroad, citing Supreme Court judgments in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, Tarun Trikha v. State of West Bengal, Satish Chandra Verma v. Union of India, and Parvez Noordin Lokhandwala v. State of Maharashtra, which recognize travel as a facet of personal liberty and outline circumstances where travel may be allowed for an accused on bail.
  • The Court noted that the petitioner’s role as MD & CEO is crucial for high‑level discussions with investors and strategic partners.

Final Outcome

  • The High Court set aside the Special Judge’s order and permitted Amit Mittal to travel abroad for the period 27.09.2026 to 16.10.2026.
  • The trial Court is directed to return the passport deposited by the petitioner.
  • The petitioner must deposit a security amount of Rs 10,00,00,000 (Ten Crores) in a fixed deposit with a nationalised bank; the amount will be returned after he returns to India and surrenders the passport as directed.
  • He must submit a detailed travel itinerary supported by an affidavit before the trial Court.
  • He must furnish an undertaking to return to India on or before 16.10.2026; failure to do so will result in forfeiture of the security and possible further legal action.
  • The petition is disposed of.

Topics: Travel Permission, Court Order, Economic Offence