Hon'ble RATHORE, J.—A short but an important question comes up for consideration in this case, as to when the order of granting anticipatory bail becomes operative.

2. The grievance of the informant petitioner is that the accused respondent No.2 has violated the condition imposed by the High Court while granting anticipatory bail on 27.03.2009, which has compelled him to file this application for cancellation of bail under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. with the prayer that the aforesaid order of anticipatory bail be cancelled.

3. The accused respondent No.2 had preferred an application for anticipatory bail (1809/2009) in FIR (43/2009) registered at Police Station Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur City, Jaipur for the offences under Section 420 and 467 IPC. The anticipatory bail application was considered and decided by the High Court, in presence of the counsel for the informant petitioner, on 27.03.2009 and after holding that the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of anticipatory bail, it was ordered as under:-

“Accordingly, it is directed that in the event of his arrest in connection with F.I.R. No.43/2009 of Police Station, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur City, Jaipur the accused petitioner Lalit Kumar Modi S/o Shri K.K. Modi shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer/S.H.O. On following conditions:

(1) that he shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

(2) that he shall not directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

(3) That he shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court;

(4) That he shall attend in accordance with the conditions of the bond executed by him.”

4. The primary submission made by the learned counsel for the informant petitioner is that the accused respondent No.2 has violated condition No.3, imposed by the Court while granting anticipatory bail, by proceeding abroad to visit South Africa. According to the counsel for the informant petitioner, the accused was not to leave India without previous permission of the Court. It has been submitted that undisputedly, the accused had made a visit to South Africa and no permission was sought from this Court before doing so. Therefore, it is submitted by the counsel for the informant petitioner that the accused is disentitled to remain on anticipatory bail and the same is liable to be cancelled in the terms under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. The learned counsel for the informant petitioner has, in support of its case, placed reliance on the case of State of Punjab vs. Raninder Singh & Anr., AIR 2008 SC 609 = 2008(2) RLW 1236 (SC).

5. On issuance of notices to the accused respondent No.2 as to why anticipatory bail should not be cancelled for violating the condition imposed by the Court, a reply has been filed on his behalf. It is averred in the reply that respondent has highest regard for the majesty and authority of law and has strictly adhered to the orders passed by the High Court, in its letter and spirit. Further, it is averred that when the order of granting anticipatory bail was passed by the High Court, he had already left for South Africa on 23.3.2009 to organise the Indian Premier League-2 as the venue had been shifted from India to South Africa, due to compelling circumstances in view of Lok Sabha Elections. It was also submitted that there has not been any violation of the order passed by the High Court. The order of granting anticipatory bail was granted on 27.3.2009 and copy of the same was issued on 30.3.2009 by the Registry of the High Court. Thereafter, the same was communicated to the accused respondents but he had already left the country for South Africa on 23.3.2009.

After lodging of the report on 15.02.2009, the accused responde

Click Here to Read the rest of this document