Ankur Agrawal S/O Late Shri Naresh Chandra vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that it has the power to modify bail conditions under Section 528 of BNSS, distinguishing the present case from those cited by the respondents. The Court found that the judgments relied upon by the respondents were distinguishable on facts, particularly concerning the nature of offenses, the stage of investigation (pending vs. completed charge-sheet), and the role of the accused. The Court noted that in Disha A. Ravi and Aparna Purohit, investigations were pending, whereas in this case, the investigation was complete and a charge-sheet had been filed. The Court also emphasized the sanctity of Article 21 of the Constitution and the need to balance the petitioner's right to travel for business with the prosecution's right to ensure his presence at trial. Considering the petitioner's business needs for international travel, his family's ties to India, and his willingness to provide undertakings and enhanced security, the Court decided to modify the bail conditions. Condition (i) was modified to require the petitioner to file a written undertaking before every foreign trip with detailed travel particulars and an affidavit not to travel after the case is fixed for final arguments. Condition (ii) was relaxed, and the passport was ordered to be returned after retaining a photocopy. An additional condition (v) was imposed requiring the petitioner to furnish additional security of Rs. 5,00,000/- in the form of a Fixed Deposit.

Facts

The petitioner, Ankur Agrawal, sought modification of bail conditions imposed by the High Court. He was granted bail in a case registered under Sections 132(1)(a), (e), (f), and (l) read with Sections 132(1)(i) and 132(iv)(5) of the CGST Act, for alleged GST evasion of Rs. 8.75 crores. The original bail order dated June 16, 2025, required him not to leave the country without court permission and to deposit his passport. The petitioner, a businessman involved in international expansion, argued these conditions were onerous and prejudiced his business pursuits. He highlighted his family's permanent residency in India, his wife's medical treatment in India, and his willingness to provide travel intimation and enhanced security. The prosecution opposed the modification, arguing the court was functus officio and Section 403 of BNSS barred modification.

Key Issues

1. Whether this Court has the power to modify bail conditions under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), or if it has become functus officio under Section 403 of BNSS, thereby barring any modification of the bail order dated June 16, 2025? (Question of law) Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the inherent powers under Section 528 of BNSS allow for modification of bail conditions, especially when they cause hardship and prejudice to business pursuits. He argued that the court is not functus officio in such matters and cited judgments like Jagdish Arora vs. Union of India, Aman Kumar Singh vs. State of Chhattisgarh, and Kirti Vishwanath Kedia vs. Central Bureau of Investigation to support his claim that bail conditions can be modified. He also emphasized his lack of flight risk and commitment to cooperate with the trial. Respondents' arguments: The respondents argued that no review, alteration, or modification of the bail order is permissible by invoking inherent powers under Section 528 of BNSS. They contended that the Court has become functus officio and that Section 403 of BNSS bars any modification of bail conditions. They relied on judgments in Barun Chandra Thakur vs. Ryan Augustine Pinto, Disha A. Ravi vs. State (NCT of Delhi), and Aparna Purohit vs. State of U.P. and Anr.