Jagdish Arora vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that it possesses inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to modify or delete conditions imposed in a bail order granted under Section 439(1)(a) of the Cr.P.C. to secure the ends of justice. The Court respectfully disagreed with the Single Bench verdict of the Karnataka High Court in Imran Khan. The reasoning was that while Section 439(1)(b) allows modification of conditions imposed by a Magistrate, the power to modify conditions imposed by the High Court itself under Section 439(1)(a) is not expressly provided in the Cr.P.C. Therefore, the only recourse for such modification is through the inherent powers saved by Section 482, which are meant to do complete justice and prevent miscarriage of justice where no express provision exists. The Court found that restricting travel abroad for business pursuits, when not expressly prohibited by law, could defeat the ends of justice. The original condition (v) was substituted with new conditions: filing a written undertaking disclosing travel dates, informing the Trial Court upon return, filing a similar undertaking with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and relevant Embassy detailing the pendency of the offence, and furnishing additional security of Rs. 10 lacs each in the form of a fixed deposit receipt. The Court invoked its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to implement these changes.

Facts

The petitioners, Jagdish Arora and Ajay Arora, invoked the inherent powers of the Madhya Pradesh High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). They sought modification of a previous bail order dated August 18, 2020, passed in MCRC No. 24219/2020. The original bail order had imposed five conditions, including a requirement for the applicants to submit their passports and not leave India without prior permission of the Court. The petitioners requested the deletion of this condition to allow them to travel abroad for business and professional purposes. The respondent, Union of India through the Senior Intelligence Officer, GST Intelligence, opposed the modification.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court, while exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., can modify or delete a condition imposed in a bail order previously granted under Section 439(1)(a) of the Cr.P.C.? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioners contended that the High Court possesses inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to secure the ends of justice. They relied on a coordinate bench's order in Dr. Anira Iqbal vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, where a similar condition was relaxed to allow the petitioner to pursue academic career abroad. They argued that the right to travel abroad is part of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution and can be regulated but not unduly restricted. Respondent's Argument: The respondent argued that no recall, review, or modification of an order passed under the Cr.P.C. is permissible by exercising inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. They cited the Apex Court judgment in Atul Shukla vs. State of M.P. & Another and a Karnataka High Court order in Imran Khan & Another vs. The State of Karnataka Forest Department, asserting that the Court becomes functus officio after passing the order and cannot modify it due to the bar under Section 362 of the Cr.P.C. They conceded that Section 439(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. allows modification of bail conditions but argued this cannot be done via Section 482.