The Bombay High Court has struck down an earlier order that required former stockbroker Ketan Parekh to deposit ₹27.06 crore as a condition for traveling abroad. Parekh, who is under prosecution for alleged large-scale manipulation of the securities market, challenged the Special Court’s directive, arguing that the conditional deposit bore no reasonable connection with ensuring his presence at trial. The High Court agreed, holding that the imposition of such a large sum as a precondition for travel was disproportionate and lacking in legal justification.
Parekh had applied for permission to travel to Thailand for a family vacation and to the UAE to attend a wedding, and while the Special Judge initially granted this request, he imposed the requirement to deposit the ₹27.06 crore balance on the basis of an ex parte SEBI order from January 2, 2025. That interim SEBI order held Parekh and others jointly liable to disgorge alleged wrongful gains of over ₹65 crore, a portion of which — more than ₹38 crore — had already been paid, leaving the disputed balance.
In court, Parekh’s counsel contended that the interim SEBI order had not attained finality and raised serious doubts over the legality of using it as a basis to demand such a massive deposit simply to allow travel. He further submitted that the order effectively negated the liberty that had been granted to Parekh, undermining the purpose of the travel permission itself.
The High Court, in its ruling, pointed out that the Special Judge had not made any finding that Parekh posed a flight risk. The Court considered his record of prior foreign trips, compliance with earlier travel conditions, and absence of any past default. Importantly, the Court found that the ₹27 crore deposit requirement failed to meet the tests of reasonability, proportionality, and a true nexus with ensuring Parekh’s attendance at trial.
The Court observed that the consented restrictions on Parekh’s travel license appeared to operate more like an enforcement mechanism for SEBI’s regulatory notice than as a legitimate bail condition. Because the underlying SEBI order was still interim and had not crystallized into a conclusive adjudication, compelling Parekh to deposit the entire amount before being allowed to travel was legally unjustifiable.
In place of the quashed condition, the High Court ordered Parekh to deposit a security of ₹5 lakh per petition. The Court directed that this amount would be forfeited if he failed to return to India by November 29, 2025. All other conditions imposed by the Special Judge — other than the deposit requirement — were left intact.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.