Syed Farooq vs. The State Of Telangana And Another

Facts

The petitioner, Syed Farooq, filed a Criminal Petition before the High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad. The petition sought to modify the bail conditions imposed by the Special Judge for Trial of Cases Under Economic Offences. Specifically, the petitioner requested a reduction in the surety amount from one surety of Rs. 3,00,000/- to one surety of Rs. 30,000/-. The order under challenge was dated 23.06.2022, passed in Crl.MP No. 67 of 2022 in HQPOR No. 24 of 2021 (Comp. No.) HQPOR No. 35/2022. The respondents were the State of Telangana and the Superintendent of Customs (Preventive). The petitioner's counsel argued the case, while the Superintendent of Customs did not appear.

Held

The Court considered the Criminal Petition filed by the petitioner, Syed Farooq, seeking modification of bail conditions. The petitioner's counsel, Sri Syed Ali Qasim Immad, sought permission from the Court to withdraw the Criminal Petition. The Court granted this permission. Consequently, the Criminal Petition was dismissed as withdrawn. As a result, any pending miscellaneous petitions related to this matter were also closed. The Court did not delve into the merits of the petitioner's request for modification of the surety amount, as the petition was withdrawn before any substantive arguments on the merits could be considered or decided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court has the power to modify the bail conditions imposed by the Special Judge for Economic Offences, specifically concerning the surety amount, under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and Section 440(2) of the Cr.P.C.? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the surety amount imposed was excessive and sought its reduction to a more manageable sum, implying that the Special Judge's order was not appropriate in this regard. The petitioner relied on the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of process, and Section 440(2) of the Cr.P.C. which allows for modification of bail conditions. Revenue/State's Contention: The judgment records that Respondent No. 2 (Superintendent of Customs) did not appear either in person or through an advocate. Therefore, no arguments were presented on behalf of the revenue/State.