IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.  1618  OF 2019

(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.  9873  of 2019)

(@ SLP (Crl.) Diary No.26654 of 2019)

BARUN CHANDRA THAKUR

     ...APPELLANT(S)

  VS.

RYAN AUGUSTINE PINTO & ANR.

            ...RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R

1.

Delay condoned. Permission to file SLP is granted. Leave granted.

With the  consent  of  counsel  of   the  parties,  the   appeal  was  heard

finally.

2.

The  respondent  had   approached   the   Punjab   &  Haryana  High

Court   seeking   modification   of   orders   made   previously,   which   had

granted   anticipatory   bail   to   him.   By   the   impugned   order,   the

conditions   governing   his   anticipatory   bail   were   modified.   In   these

circumstances, the father of the victim of the crime has approached

this   Court,   claiming   to   be   aggrieved   by   the   modifications   in   the

impugned order.

3. 

The facts necessary for the purpose of this order are brief; a First

Information Report (FIR No. 250 dated 08.09.2017) was registered for

offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

(“IPC”) read with Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, Section 75 of

Juvenile   Justice   (Care   and   Protection   of   Children)   Act,   2005   and

Digitally signed by

JAYANT KUMAR ARORA

Date: 2019.10.24

17:02:44 IST

Reason:

Signature Not Verified

Section 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012

(POSCO) at Police Station, Bhondsi. Investigation of the said case was

transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation (for brevity “CBI”).

Consequently,   the   case   was   again   registered   on   29.09.2017.   The

respondent   was   released   on   interim   bail   on   07.10.2017,   upon

furnishing bail bond to the satisfaction of the investigation agency,

subject to statutory terms and conditions. 

4.

The interim bail was subsequently made absolute on 21.11.2017.

One of the conditions stipulated in the order of the final bail was that

he would not leave India without prior permission of the Court. This

order was appealed by a Special Leave Petition. That petition was

dismissed   on   11.12.2017.   After   the   grant   of   interim   bail,   the

respondent   sought   leave   to   travel   abroad   for   about   three   weeks

between 19.01.2018 and 09.02.2018. By an order dated 18.01.2018,

permission was granted. The respondent approached the High Court

thereafter, with an application for modification of order granting bail,

in  so far   as   the   order   imposed  the   restriction  on  his   travel.  That

application was   permitted  to  be  withdrawn.   Yet  again,   on  another

application CRM­M No. 55170/ 2018 was filed. In this application, the

respondent argued that the CBI had not gathered any incriminating

material   against   him,   and   that   the   charge­sheet   was   filed   on

05.02.2018, did not contain any allegation regarding his involvement

and role in that crime, and further investigation was kept open under

Section 173(8) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “CrPC”).

5.

In this second application for modification, it was argued that the

respondent frequently travelled abroad and the condition of having to

secure prior permission was cumbersome and extremely inconvenient.

The respondent, in support of his application placed reliance upon

certain   judgments,   including   a   judgment   of   this   court.   The   CBI

opposed   the   application,   emphasizing   that   the   conditions   imposed

were not unreasonable, but in the larger interest of justice. It was also

pointed out that the conditions were imposed by virtue of Section 437

of the CrPC.

6.

The High Court by its impugned order, noticed the provisions of

Sections 437 and 438 of the CrPC. It also took note of decisions which

stressed upon the value of personal liberty and observed that the

court has to exercise extreme care in imposing restrictions in regard to

travel. The court was influen