Parallel modification of anticipatory bail conditions declined while the same order remained pending before the Supreme Court.

A petition invoking inherent jurisdiction to modify additional conditions imposed on anticipatory bail was declined because the same order was already under challenge before the Supreme Court and notice had been issued. The High Court treated the impugned order as sub judice before the apex court and held that entertaining a parallel modification request would be inappropriate. The modification petition was therefore not entertained and dismissed, with liberty to approach again after the final outcome of the SLP if occasion arose.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petition seeking modification of the order granting anticipatory bail with additional conditions deserved to be entertained when the same order was already under challenge before the Supreme Court.

Analysis: The petition invoked inherent jurisdiction to seek modification of the earlier order imposing conditions on anticipatory bail. Since the prosecution had already challenged that very order before the Supreme Court and notice had been issued, the matter was pending consideration before the apex court. In such circumstances, entertaining a modification request would be inappropriate because the impugned order was already seized of by the Supreme Court.

Conclusion: The petition for modification was not entertained and was dismissed, with liberty to approach again after the final outcome of the SLP if occasion arose.

---