Nitesh Wadhwani vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that it would not be proper to entertain the petition for modification of the order granting anticipatory bail, given that the Supreme Court was already seized of the matter and the impugned order was under challenge before it. The Court reasoned that once the apex court has taken up a case, it is generally inappropriate for a subordinate court to proceed with matters directly related to the same order. Therefore, the petition was dismissed. The Court granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the High Court again after the final outcome of the Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court, if the occasion arises.

Facts

The petitioner, Nitesh Wadhwani, filed a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. seeking modification of an earlier order dated August 13, 2020. This earlier order, passed in M.Cr.C. No. 25945/2020, had granted the petitioner anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. The specific condition the petitioner sought to modify was the requirement to submit his passport, if any, before the trial court and to not leave India without prior permission from the High Court. The respondent, Union of India through the Directorate General of GST Intelligence, informed the Court that they had challenged the August 13, 2020 order before the Supreme Court by way of SLP (Cr.) 6395/2022, and notices had been issued.

Key Issues

1. Whether this Court can entertain a petition for modification of an order granting anticipatory bail when the said order is already under challenge before the Supreme Court. This issue turns on the principles of judicial propriety and the implications of a higher court being seized of a matter. Contentions: Petitioner: Argued for modification of the anticipatory bail condition, seeking relief from the passport submission and travel restriction. Respondent: Submitted that the Supreme Court had already issued notices in their Special Leave Petition challenging the order granting anticipatory bail. Therefore, it would not be proper for the High Court to entertain a modification petition while the matter is sub judice before the apex court.