The Sessions Court does not have jurisdiction to vary the conditions of bail imposed by the High Court.

Headnote:
BAIL - Variation of conditions - Jurisdiction of Sessions Court - Res judicata - Refund of cash bail - Modification of bail order - Conditions of bail.
Fact of the Case:

The accused, a Customs Assistant Collector, was granted bail by the High Court on certain conditions, including a cash deposit of Rs. 25 lakhs. He later applied to the Sessions Court for variation of the conditions, which was allowed. The Customs Department challenged this order in the High Court.
Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that the Sessions Court did not have jurisdiction to vary the conditions of bail imposed by the High Court. It also held that the accused was entitled to a refund of the cash bail amount upon furnishing a surety of Rs. 20 lakhs. The Court further modified the conditions of bail to allow the accused to travel within India without prior permission of the Court, subject to certain conditions.
Issues: 1. Whether the Sessions Court had jurisdiction to vary the conditions of bail imposed by the High Court. 2. Whether the accused was entitled to a refund of the cash bail amount upon furnishing a surety. 3. Whether the conditions of bail could be modified to allow the accused to travel within India without prior permission of the Court.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Sessions Court did not have jurisdiction to vary the conditions of bail imposed by the High Court. 2. The accused was entitled to a refund of the cash bail amount upon furnishing a surety of Rs. 20 lakhs. 3. The conditions of bail could be modified to allow the accused to travel within India without prior permission of the Court, subject to certain conditions.
Final Decision: The High Court set aside the order of the Sessions Court and modified the conditions of bail.

JUDGMENT - M.F. SALDANHA, J.:---Issues of some interest as also of considerable importance arise in this criminal application, which are summarized as follows :---

a) Whether it is open to an accused to pray for variation of the essential conditions on which he has been released on bail, after the bail order has been availed of by him and a considerable period of time has elapsed.

b) Whether the principles analogous to res judicata would be applicable in a cases where certain conditions of a bail order passed by a subordinate Court have not been challenged before the High Court and only certain other parts of that order were appealed against and, consequently, whether the original order can thereafter be regarded as the subsisting order of the trial Court and consequently verified by the Sessions Court at the instance of the applicant.

c) In a case where an accused had exercised an option of furnishing cash bail and desires to thereafter change over to the security of a surety, whether the Customs Authorities are within their right in objecting to the refund of the cash amount pending the trial.

d) Whether the bail order once passed by the High Court ought to be modified at a point of time long after the same has been availed of.

2. The applicant before me, Rajeev Bhatia, who is the Assistant Collector of Customs, has challenged an order dated 10-5-1990 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 314 of 1990. The learned Additional Sessions Judge had effectively reduced the bail amount of the applicant therein, respondent No. 1 to this application from Rs. 75,00,000/- to Rs. 30,00,000/- and had also permitted respondent No. 1 accused the refund of the cash amount of Rs. 25,00,000/- deposited by him in the trial Court on his furnishing the requisite surety/sureties for the aggregate amount of Rs. 30,00,000/-. The applicant was also permitted to travel to Calicut on his giving prior intimation to the Customs Authorities. In addition to this, the applicant was also permitted to travel to any other place in India on his giving 48 hours' prior intimation to the Customs Authorities about the place of his destination, mode of travel to that destination and the period for which he would be at the proposed destination. The applicant was directed to deposit his passport or any fresh passport acquired by him with the Customs Authorities and there was a general direction that the applicant was to make himself available to the Authorities within a prescribed time on being called upon to do so or on notice to this effect being served on his Advocate. One more condition of consequence is that the applicant had earlier been directed to deposit with the Customs Department the title-deeds in respect of all properties owned by him and his wife which direction the applicant had complied with. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, however, imposed a further condition to the effect that the applicant was required to give an undertaking to the trial Court not to dispose of or create any third party interest in the properties of which the title-deeds had been deposited.

3. As indicated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge passed the aforesaid order on 10-5-1990 and the present applicant on behalf of the Customs Department filed the present criminal application before the High Court on 16-5-1990 and obtained ad-interim stay of the order of the Sessions Court. The recitals in the petition are to the effect that the present application has been preferred to the High Court "in its inherent revisional powers". Such confusion is not readily excusable on the part of a Government Authority, particularly the Customs Department, which has the assistance of a legal department and a host of panel of standing Counsel. The petition could either be for revision of the order of the Sessions Court or for quashing of that order in exercise of the inherent powers of this Court. The powers of the High Cou

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis