ORDER : 1. By way of present Criminal Revision Application filed u/s 307 r/w section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant has made following prayer in terms of para 25(A):- “Quash and set aside the order dated 17.09.2020 annexed herewith as ANNEXURE A passed by the Hon’ble Special Court, PMLA, Ahmedabad in CRMA 1835 of 2020 in PMLA Case No.03 of 2014.” 2. Brief facts in nutshell necessary for disposal of present Criminal Revision Application can be stated thus: 3. The private respondent and other deceased persons are facing the accusation of committing offences punishable u/s 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (for short “PMLA”). 4. Vide order dated 5.3.2015 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No.2191 of 2015 by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, the applicant was directed to deposit passport with the lower Court as per condition No.19(c) with reference to offences registered vide I – C.R. No.16 of 2014 with DCB Police Station, Surat for the offences punishable u/s 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 477A and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The private respondent came to be discharged in connection with aforesaid offences being registered as Criminal Case No.62851 of 2014, vide order dated 3.5.2017 passed by the Coordinate Bench in Criminal Revision Application No.264 of 2017. As the private respondent was discharged in connection with Criminal Case No.62851 of 2014, wherein he surrendered passport to the trial Court, he moved an application for release of the passport in his favour. Vide order dated 23.3.2018, the learned Sessions Judge changed the custody of the passport from Criminal Case No.181 of 2017 (Arising out of Criminal Case No.62851 of 2014) to the PMLA Case No.3 of 2014. Since then, the passport of the private respondent was lying in the custody of Designated Court pending trial of offence under the provisions of the PMLA, but pursuant to impugned order, the passport is released in favour of the private respondent. Thus, now, passport is in possession of the private respondent as stated at bar. 5. Since then, the passport of the private respondent was lying in the custody of Designated Court pending trial of offence under the provisions of the PMLA, but pursuant to impugned order, the passport is released in favour of the private respondent. Thus, now, passport is in possession of the private respondent as stated at bar. 5. Just to complete the remaining events that took place during interregnum period till the date of impugned order, it appears that the discharge order passed in Criminal Revision Application No.264 of 2017 in connection with the FIR being I – C.R. No.16 of 2014 registered with DCB Police Station, Surat came to be quashed and set aside by the Hon’ble Apex Court vide order dated 5.2.2019 in SLP (Criminal) No.6068 of 2017. Prior to it, the private respondent was released on bail vide order dated 23.2.2018 passed in SLP (Criminal) No.9528 of 2015 by the Hon’ble Apex Court. Accordingly, the private respondent and other accused were released on regular bail subject to terms and conditions that came to be imposed by the learned trial Court. Vide order dated 26.2.2018, learned Designated Court released the private respondent on bail imposing various conditions amongst one of conditions was not to leave the territory of India without permission of the Court and to deposit the passport before the Investigating Officer within three days. 6. Since the custody of the passport was transferred vide order dated 23.3.2018 passed in Criminal Revision Application No.2804 of 2017 annexed at Annexure C, the private respondent applied for permission before the Designated Court to permit him to go abroad either for pilgrimage, for business trip or for family vacation on various occasions. Pursuant to various such applications, in all nine in number, the private respondent was permitted to travel for a period ranging from 3 days to 3 months subject to certain conditions during the period from March, 2018 to February, 2020. Similarly, the private respondent also moved an application for temporary suspension of condition of regular bail and the conditions of regular bail were relaxed in favour of private respondent during the year 2019 – 2020 for a period ranging from 7 days to 3 months on five occasions to visit foreign countries. 7. Similarly, the private respondent also moved an application for temporary suspension of condition of regular bail and the conditions of regular bail were relaxed in favour of private respondent during the year 2019 – 2020 for a period ranging from 7 days to 3 months on five occasions to visit foreign countries. 7. Vide order dated 17.9.2020, learned Designated Court relaxed condition No.2 imposed by it in the order dated 26.2.2018 passed pursuant to grant of bail by the Hon’ble Apex Court vide order dated 23.2.2018 to the extent that the private respondent was permitted to move outside India for the purpose of business activity and the passport was returned for a period of five years from the date of order on certain terms and conditions, more particularly, described at page 8 of the impugned order passed in Criminal Misc. Application No.1835 of 2020. 8. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order, the applicant is before this Court. 9. According to learned advocate for the applicant, an inquiry was carried out under the FEMA, 1999, wherein the private respondent and other co-accused persons were involved in the racket of remitting money out of India on the basis of forged bill entries. On the basis of the complaint received by the Crime Branch, Surat, FIR being I – C.R. No.16 of 2014 was registered by the DCB Police Station, Surat u/s s 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 477A and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and also another FIR. Thereafter, investigation under the provisions of the PMLA was initiated as the offences u/s s 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 477A and 120B of the Indian Penal Code are scheduled offences in connection with the offences of the PMLA. Upon scrutiny of the two FIRs, case was registered by the Director of Enforcement for investigation into the offences under the PMLA. 10. As on today, prosecution proceedings against the private respondent and other 78 accused persons have been initiated and are on the file before the Designated Special Court at Ahmedabad and the same is at the stage of framing of charge. 11. It is the case of the applicant that the private respondent and other accused persons are involved in serious offences punishable under the PMLA and huge money is remitted abroad through fake/forged bill of entries and therefore, charges against the private respondent is grave and serious in nature. 11. It is the case of the applicant that the private respondent and other accused persons are involved in serious offences punishable under the PMLA and huge money is remitted abroad through fake/forged bill of entries and therefore, charges against the private respondent is grave and serious in nature. It is submitted that execution of Letter Rogatory (LR) is yet to be completed and further investigation is in progress and therefore, presence of the private respondent is necessary before the Directorate of Enforcement. According to learned advocate for the applicant, hawala transactions involved in the instance case are suspected to be spread across many countries and therefore, it is clear that if the private respondent is allowed to travel out of India, then he may have an opportunity to influence/temper with the evidence and which will hamper the ongoing investigation of money laundering and further possibility to escape from India cannot be ruled out and therefore, the impugned order is illegal and contrary to law. Lastly, it is urged at bar that condition to seek leave from the Court may be imposed. 12. Per contra, learned advocate appearing for the private respondent, while supporting the impugned order, would submit that all required safeguards and security in the form of conditions subject to which private respondent is permitted to retain passport for a period of five years are imposed. Pending investigation and trial, more particularly, during the year 2015 to 2020, the private respondent, after obtaining due permission of the Designated Court, travelled abroad in all 14 times for the period ranging from 3 days to 3 months and at no point of time, the applicant ventilated the grievance before the Court concerned at the time of hearing of application for permission to visit abroad as to the breach of any of the conditions and for such conduct of the private respondent, his applications were allowed from time to time. Learned advocate for the private respondent, after demonstrating such conduct of the private respondent, would further submit that the private respondent had travelled, after obtaining permission, various countries viz. Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Dubai, UK and other European countries, Kenya, Latin America, Africa USA. Learned advocate for the private respondent, after demonstrating such conduct of the private respondent, would further submit that the private respondent had travelled, after obtaining permission, various countries viz. Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Dubai, UK and other European countries, Kenya, Latin America, Africa USA. Learned advocate for the private respondent would further submit that considerable time is consumed in deciding various applications filed by the private respondent, because prior to visit abroad, the private respondent is required to apply for visa and each country takes its own time as per norms for consideration of the applications to grant visa and thus, the private respondent is likely to fail to meet with the schedule of foreign meeting, negotiation and inspection of the goods if timely permission is not obtained by him. Moreover, the private respondent may lose an opportunity of business and further, rate of foreign currency is also fluctuating everyday. Learned advocate for the private respondent would further submit that when discharge order in favour of the private respondent came to be quashed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the private respondent was at abroad and on coming to know, he returned to India and reported to the Court and thus, the private respondent has shown highest respect to the orders of the Hon'ble Court. Learned advocate for the private respondent would further submit that he was not required to apply to suspend the condition of regular bail during the period, the private respondent was discharged from the scheduled offences by the High Court, however, the private respondent applied for permission 5 times by filing various applications in the year 2019 and 2020 and only after due permission, he undertook foreign visit. On these broad premises, it is urged by Learned advocate for the private respondent that there is no impropriety or illegality in the impugned order since right to travel being fundamental right of the private respondent. Lastly, it is submitted that the private respondent is a businessman and is pursuing and expanding his business of ferrous and non-ferrous scrap material and at a time, he is required to make research of foreign supply, quality, quantity, material, transport payment etc. Lastly, it is submitted that the private respondent is a businessman and is pursuing and expanding his business of ferrous and non-ferrous scrap material and at a time, he is required to make research of foreign supply, quality, quantity, material, transport payment etc. and thus, considering overall safeguards considered by the Designated Court to ensure smooth trial and unhampered investigation, suitable conditions are imposed while relaxing condition No.2 and therefore, no any interference at the hands of this Court is required in view of peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. 13. I have heard learned ASG Mr. Devang Vyas for the applicant and learned advocate Mr. C.K. Pandya for the private respondent extensively. 14. Before merits of the contention raised by learned advocate for the applicant are considered, it is necessary to reproduce the conditions imposed by the learned Designated Court while relaxing condition No.2 and permitting the private respondent to move out of India for the purpose of business activity for a period of five years, but for limited period of 3 months at a time and in case of non-compliance of the condition, a liberty to file cancellation of order has been reserved in favour of the applicant. The relevant condition Nos.1 and 3 to 7 are as under: “1. The applicant/accused execute additional bail bond of himself and deposit the amount of Rs.5 lakh in cash or in manner of FDR before the Nazir, District Court, Ahmedabad (Rural). 3. The applicant shall provide complete itinerary contact details to the concerned investigating officer as well as the Court. 4. The applicant shall give undertaking before the Court that he shall remain present at the time of conducting the trial as and when his presence is required and the trial shall not be hampered on account of his non-availability of absence. 5. The applicant shall not leave India when crucial witnesses are going to be examined by the Court. 6. The applicant shall not stay continuously more than three months in foreign country and shall report to the investigating officer as well as the Court upon his return. 7. The applicant shall inform concerned investigating officer as well as the Court before he intends to visit foreign country.” 15. 6. The applicant shall not stay continuously more than three months in foreign country and shall report to the investigating officer as well as the Court upon his return. 7. The applicant shall inform concerned investigating officer as well as the Court before he intends to visit foreign country.” 15. Bearing in mind the conduct demonstrated by the private respondent in past, nature of accusation on one hand and to secure the unhampered trial and further investigation, the Court is required to see whether the aforesaid conditions are sufficient to ensure smooth trial and investigation. 16. It is a matter of fact that the offence pertains to the year 2014 and as of now, trial has not proceeded. There is no any possibility or likelihood of completion of trial in near future or at least say 3 years. There is no disagreement on this fact situation. Secondly, though 7 to 8 years have passed, there is no any possibility of completion of investigation even in near future or say at least for 3 to 5 years. These facts are not in dispute since the prosecution agency was not in a position to state at bar as to what further period would require to complete the remaining investigation in the offences alleged against private respondent and other co-accused persons. 17. Since the private respondent, when permitted to travel abroad during the year 2018 to 2020, observed all the conditions in its letter and spirit and there is no grievance ventilated at bar that he committed breach of any of the conditions or there is any material placed before the Court at the time of hearing of previous applications for permission for a short period. Not only that, no any order, whereby the private respondent was permitted to travel abroad, has been challenged by the applicant. 18. Having regard to the nature of business activities carried out by the private respondent, it cannot be disputed that he is not required to take prompt decision to take advantage of business opportunity and if he is required to time and again approach the Court for a permission, in that event, it may result into certain hardship and lose the business opportunity. No doubt, the nature of accusation against the private respondent is serious in its nature on one hand, but at the same time, to do business is a fundamental right of the private respondent and in order to ensure smooth trial and unhampered investigation, the Court is required to strike balance between these two. 19. Considering the aforesaid condition, more particularly, the private respondent is granted permission to visit for limited period of 3 months at a time, to provide complete itinerary and contact details both to the Court and the investigating officer, to file undertaking to remain present at the time of conducting trial and not to leave India when crucial witnesses are going to be examined by the Court and further not to stay continuously for more than three months in foreign country at a time and more particularly to move out of India for the purpose of business activities only, are sufficient safeguards provided in the impugned order. It also appears that the private respondent is required to inform concerned investigating officer and also to the Court before he intends to visit foreign country. So, looking to the seriousness of the offence on one hand and to protect the right of the private respondent to travel abroad for business purpose, the learned Designated Court took sufficient safeguards not only to protect the interest of the investigating agency, but also considered smooth trial in presence of the private respondent. In other words, the private respondent is relieved from moving applications for the purpose to visit foreign countries for business purpose and so also, the Court is not overburden for such purpose. So, the submissions by learned ASG Mr. Vyas for the applicant to maintain order subject to addition of condition to seek leave of the Court cannot be accepted for the simple reason that sufficient safeguards and checks are put on the private respondent in view of nature of offence and status of investigation and trial. 20. Lastly, the apprehension as to either fleeing from the country or influencing/tempering with the evidences is misplaced for more than one reasons. Despite, the private respondent visited foreign countries on various occasions, as aforesaid, no any condition is breached or any attempt is made to influence/temper with the evidence. 20. Lastly, the apprehension as to either fleeing from the country or influencing/tempering with the evidences is misplaced for more than one reasons. Despite, the private respondent visited foreign countries on various occasions, as aforesaid, no any condition is breached or any attempt is made to influence/temper with the evidence. On each occasion, the private respondent returned back in time and surrender the passport and therefore now onwards, if passport is retained subject to rigorous conditions as invoked by the Designated Court, no any prejudice is likely to cause the prosecution agency in view of the fact that there is no near end either to the investigation or trial and more particularly, there is no likelihood of commencement or completion of trial in near future. 21. On combined reading of the conditions imposed upon the private respondent, it transpires that the Designated Court took all care and caution to secure the presence of the private respondent at the time of trial, to trace the accused as and when he goes out of India as he is required to provide complete itinerary and contact details in advance and not to stay continuously for more than three months in foreign countries. Thus, there is complete check on the movement of the private respondent to the knowledge of the concerned investigating agency and the Court and therefore, to impose condition to seek leave of the Court is futile exercise on the part of the Court. 22. In view of the fact situation of the present case, the Court do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order, as the Court do not find any impropriety or illegality in the impugned order and therefore, present Criminal Revision Application, being devoid of merits, both on law and facts, stands declined. Notice discharged.