Pankaj Garg vs. State Of Nct Of Delhi

Held

The Court held that the conditions restricting the petitioner from leaving the NCT of Delhi and requiring him to report to the SHO every Sunday were indeed harsh and were applicable only during the pendency of interim bail. Since the interim bail was made absolute with similar conditions, the Court found it appropriate to modify them. The Court waived the conditions that the petitioner shall not leave NCT of Delhi and shall regularly mark his presence to the SHO concerned every Sunday. Furthermore, the Court directed that the passport seized from the petitioner be returned, subject to the condition that he must seek permission from the learned Trial Court if he intends to travel to any foreign country. The orders dated November 18, 2021, and August 26, 2022, were modified to this extent.

Facts

The petitioner, Pankaj Garg, a businessman with offices across various Indian states, sought modification of bail conditions imposed by the Delhi High Court. Initially granted interim bail on November 18, 2021, the bail was later made absolute on August 26, 2022. The conditions under challenge included the prohibition of leaving the National Capital Territory (NCT) of Delhi without prior court permission, surrendering his passport, and regularly marking his presence to the Station House Officer (SHO) every Sunday. The petitioner argued that the conditions restricting his movement within Delhi and requiring weekly reporting to the SHO were unduly harsh, especially given his business operations across multiple states, which he supported with GST certificates.

Key Issues

1. Whether the condition prohibiting the petitioner from leaving the NCT of Delhi without prior court permission, imposed during interim bail and continued upon making bail absolute, is excessively harsh and requires modification, considering the petitioner's business interests across India? (Question of mixed law and fact, concerning the interpretation and application of bail conditions). 2. Whether the condition requiring the petitioner to regularly mark his presence to the SHO concerned every Sunday, imposed during interim bail and continued upon making bail absolute, is excessively harsh and requires modification? (Question of mixed law and fact, concerning the interpretation and application of bail conditions). 3. Whether the condition of surrendering the petitioner's passport, imposed during interim bail, should be modified or rescinded upon making bail absolute? (Question of mixed law and fact, concerning the interpretation and application of bail conditions). Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that the restriction on leaving Delhi and the weekly reporting to the SHO were unduly harsh given his status as a businessman with operations in multiple states, as evidenced by GST certificates. He sought modification of these conditions. Respondent's Arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the State of NCT of Delhi regarding the modification of bail conditions.