Shri Khagesh Kachwal vs. The Senior Intelligence Officer

Facts

The petitioner, Shri Khagesh Kachwal, a businessman, filed a criminal petition seeking relaxation of bail conditions imposed by the Special Judge for Economic Offences, Hyderabad. The original conditions, granted on February 12, 2019, required him to appear before the complainant every Monday and surrender his passport. These conditions were modified on March 8, 2019, to appear on the first Monday of every month. An earlier application for further relaxation was dismissed on January 8, 2021, citing pending investigation. The petitioner argued that despite complying with the conditions and cooperating, his fundamental rights were affected, hindering his business. He also noted he had traveled abroad with court permission multiple times. The respondent, Senior Intelligence Officer, Directorate General of GST Intelligence, stated the investigation was at the final stage.

Held

The High Court allowed the criminal petition, modifying the bail conditions. It directed the petitioner to appear before the authorities as and when required for the purpose of investigation and to cooperate fully, with advance notice to be provided by the authorities. Regarding the passport, the Court directed the Special Judge to return the passport to the petitioner. However, it imposed a restriction that the petitioner shall not leave the country without prior permission from the Special Judge. The Court reasoned that considering the investigation was at the final stage and the petitioner's compliance, relaxation of conditions was appropriate. The ratio decidendi is that bail conditions should be relaxed when the investigation is nearing completion and the accused has cooperated, provided safeguards are in place to ensure continued cooperation and prevent absconding.

Key Issues

1. Whether the bail conditions requiring the petitioner to appear before the complainant once a month and surrender his passport should be relaxed, considering the investigation is at its final stage and the petitioner has been complying with the conditions for approximately three years? (Question of law and fact, turning on the court's discretion in imposing and modifying bail conditions). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that his fundamental rights were being affected, and his business affairs were hampered due to the recurring appearance requirement. He relied on judgments from the Delhi High Court in Bina v. Ramani, Manmohan Singh vs. C.B.I., Dr. Mujahid Saleem and others v. State of Rajasthan, and Sudheer Ambalappad v. Sub-Inspector of Police and another, arguing that the court below dismissed his application without considering these aspects. He also sought the return of his passport, noting he had traveled with permission previously. Respondent's arguments: The respondent acknowledged that the investigation was at the final stage and did not dispute the petitioner's compliance with the imposed conditions.