Amit Kumar Agarwal@ Amit Agarwal vs. State Of Odisha

Facts

The petitioner, Amit Kumar Agarwal, filed an application before the High Court of Orissa seeking modification of a bail condition imposed by an earlier order dated January 11, 2022. The condition required the petitioner to seek prior permission from the court before leaving its jurisdiction, which was causing professional inconvenience. The petitioner, a Chartered Accountant, argued that he needed to travel within and outside the state for professional obligations and that the condition imposed immense difficulties. The State (Opposite Party) argued that one co-accused was still at large and, given the nature of allegations against the petitioner, no exemption should be granted. The petitioner also submitted that he was a permanent resident, reducing the chance of abscondance.

Held

The Court modified the bail condition. It held that the petitioner would not be required to take permission from the court for leaving its jurisdiction. However, he would still need to obtain leave from the court when moving out of the State. The Court reasoned that this modification would address the professional inconveniences faced by the petitioner while still ensuring some level of oversight regarding his movements outside the State, especially considering the ongoing investigation and the fact that a co-accused was still at large. The ratio of this decision is that bail conditions can be modified to balance the accused's professional needs with the interests of justice and investigation, provided adequate safeguards remain.

Key Issues

1. Whether the bail condition requiring the petitioner to seek prior permission of the court before leaving its jurisdiction should be modified or deleted, considering the professional hardships faced by the petitioner, a Chartered Accountant, who needs to travel for his work. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that the condition imposed was leading to professional inconveniences and immense difficulties and hardship due to his professional obligations as a Chartered Accountant, requiring him to travel both within and outside the State. He also submitted that as a permanent resident, the chance of abscondance was remote. Revenue/State's Arguments: The Standing Counsel for CT & GST argued that one of the accused persons involved in the case was still at large and yet to be apprehended. Therefore, in view of the nature of allegations against the petitioner, he should not be granted any such exemption.