High Court Can Exercise Inherent Jurisdiction U/S 482 CrPC To Modify Bail Conditions, S.362 CrPC Not Bar: Madhya Pradesh HC

The division bench of Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice M.S. Bhatti was essentially dealing with an application under Section 482 CrPC moved by the Applicants accused under Section 132(1)(a) and 132(1)(i) of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, seeking amendment in one of their conditions for bail, which would allow them to travel to Germany for business purposes.

Relying on the decisions of the Apex Court in Atul Shukla v. State of M.P. & Anr. and of the Karnataka High Court in Imran Khan & Anr. v. The State of Karnataka Forest Department, the Prosecuting agency argued that no recall, review or modification of an order passed under CrPC is permissible by exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC. Referring to the Imran Khan case, it was submitted that after granting bail to the Applicants, the Court had become functus officio and could not carry out any modification thereof in view of bar contained under Section 362 CrPC.

Disagreeing with the contention put forth by the State, the Court opined that since there is no specific provision to amend the conditions of bail granted under Section 439(1)(a) CrPC, the only course available for seeking and granting modification/ deletion of such a condition would be by invoking the inherent powers of the Court under Section 482 CrPC to ensure the ends of justice-

Section 482 of Cr.P.C. saves inherent powers of this Court to be exercised inter alia to secure the ends of justice. The ends of justice can only be secured when in absence of any express provision this Court is not prevented from deleting/modifying any of the conditions subject to which an order of bail u/S.439(1)(a) of Cr.P.C. is passed. If such inherent powers are otherwise not available to this Court u/S.482 of Cr.P.C., then object of insertion of Section 482 of Cr.P.C. would stand defeated and this Court would be rendered a toothless tiger.

The Legislature while enacting the Code of Criminal Procedure could never have approved a situation where this superior Court is handicapped to exercise its inherent powers to modify/delete a condition imposed u/S.439(1)(a) of Cr.P.C. despite existence of compelling circumstances merely because of absence of enabling provision in the Cr.P.C.

The Court observed that the object behind bestowing inherent powers upon it was to do complete justice and to prevent miscarriage of justice. It further noted that the inherent powers were saved with the Court to be exercised in such circumstances where cause for doing complete justice or preventing failure of justice existed, but there was no express provision in CrPC.

As such, the Court noted, Constitutional Courts are saved with such inherent powers to do complete justice without being inhibited or disabled by absence of enabling provision.

With the aforesaid observations, the Court held that it was in respectful disagreement with the decision of the Karnataka High Court in Imran Khan case. Accordingly, the Court allowed the application of the Applicants and amended one of their conditions of bail, wherein the Applicants were to submit their passports before the trial court, by substituting it with the following conditions-

(1) The petitioners shall file a written undertaking before the Trial Court disclosing the date of departure and return of foreign trip and shall inform the Trial Court at the earliest after returning to India.

(2) The petitioners shall also file a similar undertaking before the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and relevant Embassy disclosing the fact of pendency of offence against them with full details and only after such condition is complied with, the petitioners may be allowed to proceed abroad subject to satisfying all other relevant provisions of law.

(3) The petitioners shall also furnish additional security within 30 days from today in shape of fixed deposit receipt of Rs.10 lacs each in the Trial Court, which shall stand forfeited in case of default of any of the conditions contained in this order or in the bail bond.

The Court further directed the Counsel for the Prosecuting agency to communicate the order to the Ministry of Home and Foreign Affairs.