SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.K. MAHESHWARI, VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, JJ.
Sreeja D.G. & Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
Anitha R. Nair & Anr. – Respondents
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).6677-6681 of 2025 [Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 04-02-2025 in BA No. 914 of 2025 04-02-2025 in BA No. 922 of 2025 04-02-2025 in BA No. 924 of 2025 04-02-2025 in BA No. 925 of 2025 04-02-2025 in BA No.971 of 2025 passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam]
Decided On : 04-09-2025
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 483(3) – Grant of anticipatory bail – Petition for cancellation – Where order granting anticipatory bail by High Court was impugned in instant SLP and this Court was seized of the matter, order modifying conditions of anticipatory bail set out therein, runs contrary to principles of judicial propriety and comity – Proper administration of justice demands that when order passed by High Court is under challenge and notice has been issued by this Court, thereafter, if any application is filed for modification of said order, High Court must exercise restraint in passing any orders which can possibly have effect of circumventing, prejudicing, or rendering infructuous proceedings pending before this Court – Orders passed by High Court stayed – Notice to be issued to accused as to why, on account of concealment of facts, protection of pre-arrest bail as allowed by order impugned, should not be cancelled. (Paras 9, 11 and 13)
Facts of the case:
Instant special leave petition has been filed assailing order of grant of anticipatory bail to Respondent No. 1, namely, Anitha R. Nair. Complainant approached this Court by filing special leave petition on 24.03.2025. Notice was issued on 09.04.2025, which was served on respondent no. 1 accused and as per Office Report, Vakalatnama was filed on her behalf on 16.05.2025.
Findings of Court:
In the meanwhile, respondent No. 1 - accused shall immediately surrender her passport and she shall not leave India without the permission of this Court.
Result : Notice issued.
ORDER :
1. The instant special leave petition has been filed assailing the order of grant of anticipatory bail to Respondent No. 1, namely, Anitha R. Nair. The complainant approached this Court by filing the special leave petition on 24.03.2025. Notice was issued on 09.04.2025, which was served on the respondent no. 1 - accused and as per Office Report, vakalatnama was filed on her behalf on 16.05.2025.
2. On research made at the residential office, it was found that an application bearing Criminal M.C. No. 6178 of 2025 was filed before the High Court on 06.07.2025 seeking permission to travel abroad, in terms of the conditions as specified in the order of the High Court. As submitted by the learned senior counsel for respondent, it was filed in order to travel to Dubai for immigration requirements. The same was ordered to be registered by the High Court on 10.07.2025 with an observation that the maintainability will be considered at the time of admission and it was directed to be listed on 14.07.2025. Vide order dated 14.07.2025, the High Court observed that the petition is maintainable, and the Public Prosecutor may seek directions, posting the matter on 07.08.2025. On 07.08.2025, when the matter was taken up by High Court, the following order was passed:
“The prayer in this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is to permit the petitioner to travel to Singapore for resuming his employment. The permission has been sought in view of the restriction against traveling abroad imposed by this Court while granting bail to the petitioner as per Annexures A-1 and A-2 common orders passed in separate bail applications.
2. It is pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioner ought to have filed separate cases for modification of the condition in each bail application.
3. Although I find merit in the said submission, insofar as the Crl.M.C. is numbered, rather than filing separate cases, the petitioner can be directed to remit court fees separately.
4. The petitioner is therefore directed to pay court fee separately on each bail application, regarding which he is seeking modification of the condition imposed as per Annexures A-1 and A-2 common orders.
Post on 11.08.2025.”
3. In order to mitigate the objection of the Public Prosecutor, the High Court directed the applicant (respondent no. 1 herein) to pay separate court fees on each application seeking modification of the conditions imposed in Annexure A-1 and A-2, and further directed the matter to be listed on 11.08.2025. The Court on 12.08.2025 passed the following order:
“Petitioner is the accused in 31 crimes registered at the Chingavanam Police Station for offences under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC and Sections 21 and 23 of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019. The petitioner was granted bail in all 31 crimes as per Annexures A-1 and A-2 orders of this Court, subject to conditions. This Crl.M.C. is filed seeking modification of condition No. 4 requiring the petitioner to seek permission of the jurisdictional court for leaving India.
2. Learned counsel pointed out that in view of the objection raised by the learned Public Prosecutor and the order passed by this Court, separate court fees have been paid for modification of the condition in each application for anticipatory bail, on which the common order is passed.
3. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that, considering the number of cases in which the petitioner is an accused, her presence for the purpose of investigation and trial of the cases must be ensured.
4. Considering that the restriction, if continued, will result in the petitioner’s Visa expiring and that the pendency of crimes cannot be a bar for the movement of a citizen, I deem it appropriate to modify the condition.
The Crl.M.C. is accordingly disposed of by deleting condition No. 4 in Annexures A-1 and A-2 orders and permitting the petitioner to leave India for a period of two weeks, subject to the following conditions;
i) Before leaving the country, the
Tirupati Balaji Developers (P) Ltd & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.