Supreme Court upholds bail with conditions for accused emphasizing accountability and legal action for breaches.

The Supreme Court declined to cancel the bail granted to the respondent-accused by the ASJ, Patiala House Court, New Delhi, which was affirmed by the Delhi High Court. Specific conditions were imposed, including weekly appearances before the Investigating Officer, surrender of travel documents, and restrictions on obtaining new documents without permission. The respondent-accused must strictly adhere to these conditions, with the State having the liberty to seek bail cancellation for non-compliance. The judgment emphasizes accountability and provides a mechanism for legal action in case of breaches.

---

---

Issues involved:
Bail cancellation, Conditions of bail, Compliance with bail conditions, Liberty to apply for bail cancellation.

Bail Cancellation:
The Supreme Court, after hearing the counsels and examining the records, decided not to cancel the bail granted to the respondent-accused by the ASJ, Patiala House Court, New Delhi, which was later affirmed by the Delhi High Court. The Court, however, imposed specific conditions on the bail granted to the respondent-accused.

Conditions of Bail:
The Supreme Court imposed several conditions on the bail granted to the respondent-accused. These conditions include the requirement for the accused to appear before the Investigating Officer at the Crime Branch office in Delhi once a week or to send his current location through mobile network. Additionally, the respondent-accused was directed to deposit all temporary travel documents or passports with the trial court. The State was allowed to communicate with the UK High Commission to prevent the issuance of any passport or travel document to the accused without their permission. The respondent-accused was also instructed to strictly adhere to the conditions outlined in the impugned order passed by the High Court and the Additional Sessions Judge, with a modification allowing travel within the National Capital Region of Delhi.

Compliance with Bail Conditions:
The Supreme Court emphasized that the respondent-accused must strictly comply with all the conditions imposed on the bail. The Court granted liberty to the State to apply for the cancellation of bail if the accused breaches any of the specified conditions. This provision ensures that the respondent-accused remains accountable for adhering to the terms of his bail.

Liberty to Apply for Bail Cancellation:
The judgment granted the petitioner-State the liberty to seek the cancellation of the respondent-accused's bail in case of non-compliance with the imposed conditions. This provision serves as a safeguard to address any potential violations of the bail terms by the accused, allowing the State to take appropriate legal action if necessary.

Conclusion:
In conclusion, the Supreme Court disposed of the special leave petition while maintaining the bail granted to the respondent-accused. The Court imposed stringent conditions to regulate the accused's conduct during the bail period, emphasizing compliance and accountability. Additionally, the judgment provided the State with the liberty to move for bail cancellation if the respondent-accused fails to adhere to the specified conditions, ensuring legal recourse in case of non-compliance.

---