In a bailable offence, an accused has an absolute right to bail, and conditions can be imposed by the court, but no condition can be imposed that curtails the statutory right under Section 436 Cr.P.C.

JUDGMENT

Sudhir Mittal, J. - The petitioner is a finance company. It has disbursed a loan to respondent No.1. In discharge of its liability to repay the loan amount, a cheque dated 5.12.2017, amounting to Rs.2,91,55,500/- was issued by respondent No.1, but vide memo dated 27.12.2017, the same was dishonoured. A legal notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was issued, but the cheque amount was not paid within the statutory period, leading to filing of a complaint under Section 138 of the Act. Vide summoning order dated 7.2.2018, the respondents were summoned for 27.4.2018. On this date, the respondents put in appearance through counsel and sought exemption from personal appearance on various grounds. Respondent Nos.2 and 5 sought exemption on the ground of ill-health of the mother of respondent No.2 and respondent Nos.3 and 4 sought exemption on the ground of their own ill-health. The matter was adjourned to 10.05.2018 on which date exemption was again sought on behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 5. Meanwhile, the petitioner filed an application dated 1.5.2018 for putting respondent Nos.2 to 5 to terms. It was prayed that the said respondents be directed to deposit their passports and not to leave the country without prior permission of the Court. Vide impugned order dated 29.5.2018, application dated 1.5.2018 filed on behalf of the petitioner was rejected.

2. Notice of motion was issued vide order dated 11.7.2018, after noticing that the respondents had taken a loan of Rs.481.56 crores and their cheques worth total of Rs.10.55 crores had been dishonoured, various complaints had been filed, but respondent Nos.2 to 5 failed to appear personally and seek bail; the petitioner therefore, apprehended that respondent Nos.2 to 5 might flee the country. On the next date of hearing i.e. 30.7.2018, the respondents put in appearance through counsel and sought time to file a reply. The case was adjourned to 31.8.2018 and interim directions were issued restraining respondent Nos.2 to 5 from travelling abroad without permission of the Court.

3. Thereafter, on 02.08.2018, a miscellaneous application for modification/rectification of order dated 30.7.2018 was filed on behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 5. It was stated therein that actual direction contained in order dated 30.7.2018 was that respondent Nos.2 to 5 would not travel abroad without 'informing' the Court, but by a clerical error, the order records that the said respondents would not travel abroad without 'permission' of the Court. Since respondent Nos.4 and 5 were due to leave the country on 4.8.2018, an application dated 2.8.2018 was also filed before the trial Court for advancing the date of hearing. Another application of even date was filed for grant of bail and a third application of even date was filed for permission to travel abroad. Vide order dated 2.8.2018, the trial Court granted bail and permitted respondent Nos.4 and 5 to travel abroad. Meanwhile, the application for modification/rectification of order dated 30.7.2018, was taken up in this Court in the post lunch session and orally, it was conveyed to the parties that there is no clerical error in the order and that respondent Nos.2 to 5 were required to take 'permission from this Court'. Thus, application for modification/rectification was dismissed as not pressed. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application for issuance of appropriate directions during the pendency of the present petition alleging that respondent Nos.2 to 5 were attempting to over-reach the Court. They were aware that this Court vide order dated 30.7.2018 had directed them not to travel abroad without the 'permission of this Court.' Yet, an application was filed before the trial Court seeking permission to travel abroad and a similar application was also filed before 'this Court' allegedly for modification/rectification and during the course of arguments in the said application, 'this Court'