Bombay High Court Refuses Bail Cancellation, Imposes Additional Conditions

The Bombay High Court, in Criminal Application No. 650 of 1990, declined to cancel the accused's bail despite concerns raised by the prosecution regarding violations of the Foreign Exchange Regulations Act and possession of two passports. The court imposed additional conditions on the accused, including increased bail bonds, regular reporting to the Enforcement Directorate, and compliance with specific requirements for bail continuation. The court partially allowed the application, maintaining bail with added conditions, and rejected the application for relaxation of bail terms in Criminal Application No. 684 of 1990.

---

---

Issues:
- Bail cancellation application filed by Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate
- Allegations against the accused related to Foreign Exchange Regulations Act
- Possession of two passports by the accused
- Arguments for and against bail cancellation
- Additional conditions imposed on the accused for continuation of bail

Analysis:
The judgment by Ashok Agarwal, J. of the Bombay High Court pertains to the Criminal Application No. 650 of 1990 filed by the Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate seeking the cancellation of bail granted to the accused in Criminal Application No. 378 of 1990. The prosecution alleged that the accused, a proprietor of an export business, had violated the Foreign Exchange Regulations Act by not repatriating foreign exchange as required. The prosecution further contended that the accused possessed two passports simultaneously, raising concerns about his intention to abscond. The prosecution highlighted instances where the accused had applied for anticipatory bail and subsequently absconded. The judgment detailed various applications filed by the accused and the rejection of anticipatory bail in the past. The prosecution presented evidence suggesting the accused's potential flight risk, including the possession of two passports and travel arrangements made by the accused. The defense argued against bail cancellation, stating that the prosecution had sufficient time to oppose bail and lacked justifiable grounds for cancellation. The judgment analyzed the explanations provided by the defense regarding the possession of two passports and found them unsatisfactory. Despite the concerns raised by the prosecution, the court declined to cancel the bail but imposed additional conditions on the accused. The accused was directed to furnish bail bonds in an increased amount, report to the Enforcement Directorate regularly, and comply with specific reporting requirements. The judgment concluded by partially allowing Criminal Application No. 650 of 1990 and imposing the additional conditions for continuation of bail while rejecting the application for relaxation of bail terms in Criminal Application No. 684 of 1990.

---