TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Petitioner granted permission to photograph vessel in smuggling case despite non-disclosure of earlier filing</h1> HC allowed petitioner's application to photograph and videograph vessel in smuggling case involving cocaine. Court noted petitioner failed to disclose ... Requirement of compliance with the condition of taking of photographs and videos of the ship - Smuggling - Cocaine - HELD THAT:- On account of the petitioner not mentioning about filing of the earlier CRLMC, normally, this CRLMC would have been dismissed with cost, but in view of the innocuous nature of the relief claimed in this CRLMC which is to direct the opposite party to allow the petitioner to enter the port and click photographs and videos of the Vessel which has already been directed by the learned Additional and District Sessions Judge, Kujanga and confirmed by this Court in its judgment dated 07.03.2025, the CRLMC is allowed and the opposite party is directed to permit the petitioner to take photographs and videographs as directed vide condition no. III of order dated 12.02.2024, but subject to payment of cost of Rs.10,000/- to the Orissa High Court Bar Association Welfare Fund in course of the day. The petitioner shall be permitted by the opposite party to take photographs and videographs of the vessel tomorrow (30.04.2025), as receipt showing payment of cost of Rs.10,000/- has been filed in the Court today. The receipt be scanned and incorporated in the digital record by the Registry. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal questions considered by the Court in this matter are:(a) Whether the petitioner is entitled to comply with condition No. III of the bail order dated 12.02.2024, which mandates taking photographs and video recordings of the seized vessel, and whether the opposite parties are obligated to permit such compliance;(b) Whether the petitioner's failure to disclose prior related proceedings before the Court affects the maintainability of the present petition;(c) The appropriateness and reasonableness of the bail conditions imposed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kujang, particularly conditions relating to bank guarantees, indemnity bonds, and sureties;(d) The implications of the vessel's detention on environmental safety, public interest, and the petitioner's commercial interests;(e) The impact of the pendency of a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court on the exercise of jurisdiction by this Court;(f) The question of costs and procedural propriety regarding the petitioner's conduct in the instant proceedings.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS(a) Compliance with Condition No. III - Permission to Take Photographs and Videos of the VesselRelevant legal framework and precedents: The bail order dated 12.02.2024 imposed several conditions on the petitioner to secure the vessel's release, including the filing of photographs and a video clip of the vessel from all angles, with strict technical specifications such as encryption, hash tagging, and date/time stamps. The Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) fixed by the Hon'ble High Court in a prior writ petition (W.P.C. No.34622/2021) was to govern the compliance. The Court's supervisory role extends to ensuring that bail conditions are complied with in the manner prescribed.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The petitioner had approached the Investigating Officer (I.O.) for permission to take photographs and videos as per the bail condition but was denied compliance. The petitioner contended that the denial was unjustified and sought the Court's intervention. The Union of India did not object to the petitioner's prayer for permission but sought adjournment on the ground of pendency of an SLP before the Supreme Court challenging a related judgment.Key evidence and findings: The petitioner's representation dated 04.04.2025 requesting permission to take photographs and videos was accepted by the I.O., but actual compliance was withheld. The petitioner also highlighted the need for maintenance of the vessel, citing risks of environmental damage and commercial loss due to prolonged detention.Application of law to facts: The Court observed that the bail order's condition No. III was clear and binding. The petitioner's right to comply with this condition was established by the order of the learned Sessions Judge and confirmed by this Court's subsequent judgment dated 07.03.2025. The refusal by the opposite parties to permit compliance was therefore unjustified.Treatment of competing arguments: While the Union of India sought adjournment due to the pendency of an SLP, the Court noted that the SLP had not yet been registered or listed before the Supreme Court. The petitioner's claim for urgent compliance was therefore entertained, balancing procedural propriety with the need to prevent undue prejudice to the petitioner and environmental/public safety concerns.Conclusions: The Court allowed the petitioner to enter the port and take photographs and videos of the vessel as per condition No. III of the bail order, subject to payment of costs.(b) Non-disclosure of Prior Proceedings and Procedural Conduct of the PetitionerRelevant legal framework and precedents: The principle of 'clean hands' requires litigants to disclose all relevant prior proceedings to the Court to enable informed adjudication. Non-disclosure may result in dismissal or imposition of costs.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The petitioner failed to disclose the earlier CRLMC No. 441 of 2024 and Criminal Revision No. 93 of 2024, which were disposed of by a common judgment dated 07.03.2025. The Court observed this omission as a breach of the duty of candor.Key evidence and findings: The judgment dated 07.03.2025 was on record and showed that the petitioner had earlier sought modification of the bail conditions and that the Union of India had challenged the order in revision proceedings.Application of law to facts: Despite the non-disclosure, the Court chose not to dismiss the petition outright given the innocuous nature of the relief sought (permission to take photographs and videos) and the absence of prejudice to the opposite party on this limited issue.Treatment of competing arguments: The petitioner's conduct was noted with disapproval, but the Court balanced this against the merits of the claim and the interest of justice.Conclusions: The Court imposed a cost of Rs. 10,000/- payable to the Orissa High Court Bar Association Welfare Fund as a consequence of the petitioner's failure to disclose prior proceedings.(c) Modification of Bail Conditions Regarding Financial SecurityRelevant legal framework and precedents: Bail conditions must be reasonable and proportionate. The Court has authority to modify conditions if they are harsh or impractical, especially when the petitioner lacks an Indian bank account or when valuation of the vessel is uncertain.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court reviewed the original order dated 12.02.2024 that required a bank guarantee of Rs. 10 crores and an indemnity bond plus solvent surety for Rs. 100 crores. The Court found the bank guarantee condition harsh and waived it since the petitioner had no Indian bank account. The indemnity bond amount was reduced to Rs. 75 crores, and the surety requirement was increased to two solvent sureties for the same amount, reflecting a more balanced approach.Key evidence and findings: No certified valuation report was produced; the Rs. 100 crores figure was based on insurance declaration and considered hypothetical.Application of law to facts: The Court applied a reasonable approach considering the factual background and investigation progress, modifying the financial conditions accordingly.Treatment of competing arguments: The petitioner's inability to furnish a bank guarantee was accepted; the Union of India's concerns about adequate security were addressed by adjusting the indemnity bond and surety requirements.Conclusions: The Court modified the bail conditions to waive the bank guarantee and adjust the indemnity bond and surety requirements, while keeping other conditions intact.(d) Environmental and Commercial Considerations Relating to Vessel DetentionRelevant legal framework and precedents: Courts recognize environmental protection and public safety as paramount considerations. The detention of vessels may cause environmental harm if maintenance is delayed, and commercial interests of the petitioner are also relevant.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The petitioner highlighted risks including oil leakage, marine pollution, damage to flora and fauna, and economic loss due to vessel idling. The Court acknowledged these concerns but emphasized compliance with judicial orders and procedural safeguards.Key evidence and findings: The vessel was overdue for dry-docking and maintenance; insurance was valid until 30.04.2025; the petitioner claimed daily losses of USD 20,000.Application of law to facts: The Court balanced these considerations against the need for investigation and security of the vessel pending trial.Treatment of competing arguments: The petitioner's environmental and commercial concerns supported the urgency of allowing photography and videography to facilitate maintenance and possible release.Conclusions: The Court's directions to permit photography and video recording facilitate the petitioner's ability to comply with maintenance and environmental safety requirements.(e) Impact of Pendency of SLP Before Supreme CourtRelevant legal framework and precedents: The pendency of a higher court proceeding generally restrains lower courts from taking conflicting action but does not necessarily preclude interim relief.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Union of India sought adjournment citing pendency of SLP challenging the common judgment dated 07.03.2025. However, the Court noted the SLP was not yet registered or listed, and therefore the matter was not strictly sub-judice before the Supreme Court.Key evidence and findings: Status report on SLP Diary No. 20188 of 2025 showed all defects removed but no listing.Application of law to facts: The Court exercised its discretion to proceed with the limited relief sought, without prejudice to the Supreme Court's jurisdiction.Treatment of competing arguments: The Court balanced the interests of justice and procedural propriety, allowing the petitioner's request subject to costs.Conclusions: The pendency of the SLP did not preclude the Court from directing compliance with condition No. III.(f) Costs and Procedural DirectionsThe Court imposed costs of Rs. 10,000/- on the petitioner for non-disclosure of prior proceedings but allowed the petition on merits due to the limited and innocuous nature of the relief sought. The petitioner was directed to pay the costs on the same day and produce the receipt to the Court. The Court ordered urgent certified copies of the order be supplied on proper application.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS'The condition No. 1 with regard to furnishing a Bank Guarantee would be a harsh condition so far the Petitioner-Shipping Company is concerned since they are not having any bank account in India. Therefore, the condition No. 1 requires reconsideration by this Court. Accordingly, the condition No. 1 is hereby waived.''The value of the vessel has been assessed on a hypothetical basis... Since no valuation report by a certified valuer could be produced... this Court is required to take a reasonable approach... Accordingly, the condition No. 2 is modified to the extent that instead of Rs.100 crores, the Petitioner-Shipping Company shall now furnish an indemnity bond to the tune of Rs. 75 crores and instead of one solvent surety for the like amount, they shall furnish two solvent sureties for the like amount.''The petitioner shall be permitted by the opposite party to take photographs and videographs of the vessel tomorrow (30.04.2025), as receipt showing payment of cost of Rs.10,000/- has been filed in the Court today.'Core principles established include the reasonableness and proportionality of bail conditions, the necessity of procedural transparency and disclosure by litigants, and the Court's balancing of environmental/public safety concerns with procedural safeguards and investigation interests. The Court affirmed the petitioner's right to comply with bail conditions relating to documentation of the vessel and clarified that pendency of higher court proceedings does not automatically bar interim relief in the lower court.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
