SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Raj) 2074

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN, BENCH AT JAIPUR
MANEESH SHARMA, J.
Ankur Agrawal, S/o Late Shri Naresh Chandra - Petitioner 
Versus 
Union Of India, Through Principal Additional Director General, Directorate Of Goods And Services Tax Intelligence and Anr. – Respondents
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 322 of 2025 In S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.6128 of 2025 
Decided On : 12-09-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Prakul Khurana.
For the Respondents: Mr. Kinshuk Jain, Senior Standing Counsel.

Bail conditions can be modified under inherent powers to prevent undue hardship to the accused while maintaining the integrity of the trial and respecting personal liberties.

Headnote:(A) Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 528 - Modification of bail conditions - The applicant sought modification of bail conditions imposed during the grant of bail, citing onerous conditions affecting business - The court recognized the need to balance personal liberty and the prosecution's interests while addressing bail conditions. (Paras 9, 19, 24)

(B) Fundamental Right - Article 21 of the Constitution of India - The right to personal liberty, including the right to travel abroad, is fundamental but subject to reasonable restrictions to prevent evasion of justice. (Paras 18)

(C) Legal Precedents - The court considered legal precedents on the modification of bail conditions, asserting that such alterations are permissible to secure justice without infringing on personal liberties. (Paras 13, 22)

Facts of the case:
This application was filed by the accused seeking modification of bail conditions requiring prior court permission for international travel and deposit of passport. The petitioner is a businessman involved in multiple tire companies and needs to travel frequently for business. The initial bail was granted on June 16, 2025, under specific conditions that the petitioner found onerous.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the conditions imposed were too restrictive given the petitioner's business needs and modified them to allow for written notification of travel plans while ensuring compliance with trial proceedings.

Issues: The main issues revolved around the balance between personal liberty and the prosecution’s measures to prevent flight risk and to ensure trial compliance.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the conditions of bail can be modified to alleviate undue hardship imposed on the petitioner while upholding both his rights and the integrity of the trial process.

Result: The application for modification of bail conditions was granted with modifications outlined in the judgment.

Table of Content
1. details of bail application and facts of case. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. petitioner seeks modification of bail conditions. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. opposition to modification by prosecution. (Para 7 , 8 , 9)
4. court's considerations on maintainability and inherent powers. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
5. legal observations on personal liberty in bail context. (Para 17 , 18 , 19)
6. balancing personal liberty and prosecution interests. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)
7. modification of bail conditions decided. (Para 24 , 25 , 26)

JUDGMENT :

MANEESH SHARMA, J.

1. The present miscellaneous application has been filed by the accused/petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the ‘petitioner’) under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘ BNSS ’) seeking modification/deletion of condition No. (i) and condition No. (ii) imposed by this Court while granting bail vide order dated 16.06.2025 passed in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 6128/2025.

2. Brief facts giving rise to the present application are that Case No. F.No.DGGI/INV/GST/2764/2023-Gr.C was registered against the petitioner for alleged offences under Sections 132 (1) (a), (e), (f) and (l) read with Sections 132 (1)(i) and 132(iv)(5) of the CGST Act. The allegation against the petitioner is that he has evaded GST to the tune of Rs. 8.75 crores, on the following charges:—

"i) That the petitioner was selling tyres and tyre-tubes without issuance of invoices or challans;

ii) That the petitioner was selling motorcycle tyres and tubes by wrongly using invoices meant for cycles;

iii) That the petitioner sold tyres and tubes at prices lower than their actual value."

3. In connection with the aforesaid case, the petitioner filed a regular bail application under Section 483 of BNSS , which was allowed by this Court vide order dated 16.06.2025, subject to the following conditions:

"(i) he shall not leave the country without prior permission of the court.

(ii) he shall deposit the passport before the concerned authority.

(iii) he shall co-operate in the trial and shall attend each and every date of hearing in the trial, until and unless his presence is exempted by the trial court.

(iv) in case, the above conditions are not complied by the petitioner, thus the respondent prosecution shall be free to move for cancellation bail application."

4. The inherent powers of this Court are hereby invoked under Section 528 , BNSS , seeking modification of the order dated 16.06.2025 passed in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 6128/2025, to the extent that the said order granting regular bail under Section 483 of BNSS in favour of the petitioner is a bit onerous and causing immense hardship to him to fulfill his business/professional pursuits.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, a businessman by vocation, is a Director in M/s Kalivahan Rubber Private Limited, a partner in M/s Kalivahan, and the Proprietor of M/s Kalivahan Rubber Udyog; the aforesaid entities are engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling various types of tyres and tubes. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that, being the operational head of these entities, the petitioner is actively involved in the international expansion of business operations, and owing to such nature of work, the petitioner requires to travel abroad frequently, and has done so in the past, in the ordinary course of business, the same was supported with copies placed on record, marked as Annexure-A/2 (Colly). He also submits that looking to the facts stated above, the restrictions imposed vide conditions No. (i) and No. (ii) of the order dated 16.06.2025 are a bit onerous and causing serious prejudice to the petitioner as they restrain him from undertaking his international business commitments freely.

6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further contended that since: (i) the entire family of the petitioner, including his parents and spo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top