TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 1946
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ank in favour of the Airports Authority of India. It was specified that the bail order would be operative only when the amount of Rs. 64,00,000/- is deposited in terms of the order. The fixed deposit was directed to be renewed from time to time till conclusion of trial and it is subject to the orders of the trial court. 3. The present case arises out of F.I.R. No. RC0062011A0013, dated 15.07.20112 alleging corruption in submission of forged bills for supply of cement to the Airports Authority of India during execution of a project called "Expansion of Apron, Construction of Additional Taxiway and Allied Works at Varanasi Airport" alleging a wrongful loss of Rs. 25,74,065/-, which was lodged against seven accused persons, five government servants and a company/consortium. The applicant was not named in the F.I.R. 4. The applicant was a Director of M/s B. R. Arora Private Limited, a Constituent Member of M/s Bright Aracon, which is said to have submitted inflated bills. It came to light during investigation that the applicant had played an important role in commission of the offence and, therefore, he was also arraigned as an accused in the charge-sheet forwarded to the learned....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....18, passed by the trial court. However, this Court did not interfere with the charge-sheet and left it open for the prosecution / investigating agency, i.e. CBI to take appropriate steps permissible under law. 8. The order dated 17.12.2021 passed by this Court in Application under Section 482 No.3274 of 2018 was challenged by filing S.L.P. Nos. 4006-4008 of 2022, which were dismissed by means of an order dated 01.10.2024. 9. In view of the aforesaid orders passed by this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the trial Court has passed an order dated 13.05.2022, stating that by means of the order dated 17.12.2021, passed in petition under Section 482 No.3274 of 2018, this High Court has quashed the prosecution sanction order passed in respect of co-accused persons Giriraj Sharma, Bhupendra Singh and Dilip Kumar and has quashed the cognizance and summoning order dated 12.11.2013 and the order dated 06.01.2018 whereby their application was rejected. The trial court held that after the aforesaid orders, it would not be proper to proceed with the matter against the accused persons. The trial court closed the proceedings till further orders and ordered the record to be consigned. Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion 482 Cr.P.C. saves the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. When orders can be passed in exercise of inherent powers of this Court by filing a miscellaneous application in a decided case, it cannot be said that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain a fresh application under Section 482 for securing the ends of justice by securing the ends of justice by relaxing conditions no. (iii) & (iv) putting restraint on the right of travel when the summoning order regarding the scheduled offence already stands set aside and proceedings of trial under PMLA stand stayed by this Court. 13. The counter affidavit filed by CBI refers to the judgment in the case of Aparna Purohit Vs. State of U.P. and another: 2021 SCC OnLine SC 3467 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that: - "The inherent powers, however, as much as controlled by principal and precedent as are its express powers by Statutes and if a matter is covered by an express letter of law, the court cannot give a go by to the statutory provis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lie to modify the conditions of bail. This judgment was challenged by filing SLP No.4483 of 2023 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court which was disposed of as withdrawn by means of an order dated 10.10.2023. In later judgments in the cases of Vinod Kumar Sharma Vs. CBI: 2023 (12) ADJ 743 and Vivek Yadav and another Vs. State, Crl. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No.1224 of 2023, decided on 21.02.2024, two different coordinate benches have held that this court can modify the conditions imposed in a bail order. However, the subsequent judgments in the cases of Vinod Kumar Sharma (supra) and Vivek Yadav(supra) have not taken into consideration the earlier judgment in the case of Aparna Purohit (Supra). 19. Sri Akash Prasad has submitted that allowing the application for modification order would amount to this court sitting in appeal over the bail order passed by a coordinate Bench, which is not the intent of Section 482 Cr.P.C. 20. Per contra, Sri. Purnendu Chakravarty, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that Section 482 Cr.P.C. protects the inherent powers of this court to secure the ends of justice and there are no limitations of this power to be exer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... shall be brought up to hear the judgment pronounced. (6) If the accused is not in custody, he shall be required by the Court to attend to hear the judgment pronounced, except where his personal attendance during the trial has been dispensed with and the sentence is one of fine only or he is acquitted: Provided that, where there are more accused than one, and one or more of them do not attend the Court on the date on which the judgment is to be pronounced, the presiding officer may, in order to avoid undue delay in the disposal of the case, pronounce the judgment notwithstanding their absence. (7) No judgment delivered by any Criminal Court shall be deemed to be invalid by reason only of the absence of any party or his pleader on the day or from the place notified for the delivery thereof, or of any omission to serve, or defect in serving, on the parties or their pleaders, or any of them, the notice of such day and place. (8) Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit in any way the extent of the provisions of Section 465." 24. Sections 356, 357, 357-A, 357-B, 357-C, 358, 359 and 360 falling in Chapter XXVII Cr.P.C. refer to certain o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....locutory order so as to be outside the purview of the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court." 27. The aforesaid judgment was followed by a Bench consisting of four Hon'ble Judges of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in V. C. Shukla v. State through CBI: 1980 Supp SCC 92. The judgment in the case of V.C. Shukla (supra) was followed in Usmanbhai Dawoodbhai Memon v. State of Gujarat: (1988) 2 SCC 271, in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:- "24. ... In V.C. Shukla v. State [1980 Supp SCC 92], Fazal Ali, J. in delivering the majority judgment reviewed the entire case law on the subject and deduced therefrom the following two principles, namely, (i) that a final order has to be interpreted in contradistinction to an interlocutory order; and (ii) that the test for determining the finality of an order is whether the judgment or order finally disposed of the rights of the parties. It was observed that these principles apply to civil as well as to criminal cases. In criminal proceedings, the word "judgment" is intended to indicate the final order in a trial terminating in the conviction or acquittal of the accused. Applying these tests, it was held that an order framing a cha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the circumstances. Conditions of bail could also be varied if a case is made out for such variation based on that factor. Prohibition contemplated in Section 362 of the Code would not apply in such cases. Hence, we do not think the reasoning on which the impugned order was passed rejecting the Appellant's application of bail can be sustained..." (Emphasis added) 29. In Jagdish Arora versus Union of India: 2022:MPHC-JBP:15286-DB, a Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court consisting of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sheel Nagu and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Maninder Singh Bhatti held that:- "8.1. It is also settled that grant of bail is a rule whereas its denial is an exception. Once bail is granted subject to certain conditions by the High Court u/s. 439(1)(a) of Cr.P.C. as is the case herein, the power to modify or delete the conditions subject to which bail is granted, is also inherently vested with the High Court. 8.2. The power of amending or deleting any condition, subject to which bail order u/s. 439(1)(a) of Cr.P.C. is granted, is however not expressly provided in Cr.P.C. Thus, the only course available for seeking and granting modification/deletion of such a co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that under Section 438 and 439 Cr.P.C. the Sessions Court or the High Court may grant anticipatory bail or regular bail to the accused persons in appropriate cases. Both under Section 438 (U.P. Amendment) as well as under Section 439 Cr.P.C. reasonable conditions may be imposed in order to secure fair trial. The Judge or in the case of the High Court, the Bench after final disposal of the bail or anticipatory bail as the case may be becomes Functus Officio and nothing remained pending before the Bench as the rights have been finally adjudicated. Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. provides that a person released on bail by the High Court or by the Court of Sessions may be committed to custody. However, this power of High Court or the Sessions Court is conferred on account of the happening of subsequent events like the accused not obeying the conditions of Bail, etc. However, if any person is aggrieved by the order of grant of bail, he or she will have to approach the superior court for cancellation of that order and the same could not be moved or cancelled by the same court by virtue of bar contained under Section 362 Cr.P.C." (Emphasis added) 33. Sri. Aakash Prasad, the learned Counsel f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... keep the FDR with the investigating officer. The Hon'ble Supreme Court set aside the aforesaid condition holding that: - "14. Thus, in the case on hand, fixed deposit of Rs. 1,00,00,000 for a period of six months in the name of the complainant and to keep the FDR with the investigating officer as a condition precedent for grant of anticipatory bail is evidently onerous and unreasonable. It must be remembered that the court has not even come to the conclusion whether the allegations made are true or not which can only be ascertained after completion of trial. Certainly, in no words are we suggesting that the power to impose a condition of this nature is totally excluded, even in cases of cheating, electricity pilferage, white-collar crimes or chit fund scams, etc. 15. The words "any condition" used in the provision should not be regarded as conferring absolute power on a court of law to impose any condition that it chooses to impose. Any condition has to be interpreted as a reasonable condition acceptable in the facts permissible in the circumstance and effective in the pragmatic sense and should not defeat the order of grant of bail. We are of the view that the p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... entire blame is thrown on the lawyer in making such statement for the purpose of obtaining order of bail or anticipatory bail as the case may be. In such circumstances, the concerned court would be left with no other option but to cancel the bail either at the instance of the State or the original complainant. 18. The case in hand is one in which the appellant on his own free will and volition filed an affidavit in the form of an undertaking before the High Court that he would deposit an amount of Rs. 25,00,000/- but ultimately resiled to do so and the High Court had to cancel the bail. It was too much for the lawyer of the appellant to argue before the High Court that asking his client to deposit Rs. 25,00,000/- was unreasonable. It reflects on the professional ethics. 19. By this order, we make it clear and that too in the form of directions that henceforth no Trial Court or any of the High Courts shall pass any order of grant of regular bail or anticipatory bail on any undertaking that the accused might be ready to furnish for the purpose of obtaining appropriate reliefs. 20. The High Courts as well as the Trial Courts shall decide the plea for regula....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... process of the court and to secure ends of justice. Such power cannot be exercised to do something which is expressly barred under the Code. If any consideration of the facts by way of review is not permissible under the Code and is expressly barred, it is not for the court to exercise its inherent power to reconsider the matter and record a conflicting decision. If there had been change in the circumstances of the case, it would be in order for the High Court to exercise its inherent powers in the prevailing circumstances and pass appropriate orders to secure the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of the process of the court. Where there is no such changed circumstances and the decision has to be arrived at on the facts that existed as on the date of the earlier order, the exercise of the power to reconsider the same materials to arrive at different conclusion is in effect a review, which is expressly barred under Section 362." (emphasis added) 41. Thus the Hon'ble Supreme Court has expressly laid down that where there is a change in the circumstances of the case, the High Court may exercise its inherent powers in the prevailing circumstances and pass appropriate order....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e jurisdiction where, in the words of Krishna Iyer, J. "abuse of the process of the court or other extraordinary situation excites the Court's jurisdiction. The limitation is self-restraint, nothing more". 44. Sri. Aakash Prasad had tried to distinguish the case of Prabhu Chawla (supra) by submitting that the aforesaid judgment has been given while comparing the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and the revisional powers under Section 397 Cr.P.C. I am of the view that the aforesaid passage explains the scope of Section 482 irrespective of Section 397 Cr.P.C. 45. Moreover, In Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency (P) Ltd. v. CBI: (2018) 16 SCC 299, a Bench consisting of three Hon'ble Judges of the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that: - "52. ... First and foremost, it must be appreciated that the High Courts are established by the Constitution and are courts of record which will have all powers of such courts, including the power to punish contempt of themselves (see Article 215). The High Court, being a superior court of record, is entitled to consider questions regarding its own jurisdiction when raised before it. In an instructive passage by a Constitution Bench ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....owers constitutionally recognized under Article 215, to be exercised for securing the ends of justice. 47. In order to fully comprehend and effectively exercise the inherent powers of the High Court, it is pertinent to note the legislative intent and the purpose that was intended to achieved by Section 482 Cr.P.C. and Article 215 of the Constitution of India. The object behind Article 215 is to give power to the High Courts to decide their own jurisdiction, apparently to confer discretionary powers on the High Courts, to be exercised in appropriate cases in which it deems fit to invoke its powers. Without giving the power to decide its own jurisdiction the inherent powers to secure the ends of justice might become meaningless. Similarly, the words "to make such orders as may be necessary to secure the ends of justice" used in Section 482 conclude the aforesaid section in an open ended manner, the underlying object being to save the discretionary inherent powers of the High Courts to decide for itself what would be the appropriate cases in which the inherent power should be invoked. Therefore, the object behind both the provisions appears to be one i.e. to further the cause of su....