-
by sayum
29 August 2026 7:20 AM
“Conditions of Bail Are Not Cast in Stone — Court Retains Inherent Power Under BNSS to Ensure Ends of Justice” In a significant order Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench) invoked its inherent powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) to relax onerous bail conditions previously imposed on a tyre industry businessman facing trial for GST evasion amounting to ₹8.75 crores.
The petitioner, who had earlier been granted bail under Section 483 of BNSS, approached the Court seeking modification of conditions that restricted his foreign travel and required deposit of his passport, arguing that these severely impacted his business which necessitated frequent international travel.
Justice Maneesh Sharma, while allowing the application in part, held:
“The final order in a bail application is its grant or refusal. Conditions imposed therein are neither judgment nor orders disposing of the case and are, therefore, subject to judicial review and alteration under inherent powers saved in Section 528 of the BNSS.”
“Bail Orders Are Interlocutory — They Can Be Modified to Avoid Hardship Without Offending Finality”
Rejecting the respondents’ contention that the Court had become functus officio, and could not alter the bail conditions, the Court invoked the Chhattisgarh High Court’s ruling in Aman Kumar Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh, distinguishing it from the Supreme Court’s ruling in Aparna Purohit.
The Court quoted with approval: “Conditions alone are neither judgments nor final orders disposing of the case… The practice of modification of bail orders is not alien to criminal jurisprudence and has been prevalent for long.”
It further emphasized that Section 528 BNSS, which preserves the inherent power of the Court, can be rightly invoked when the ends of justice so require.
“Right to Personal Liberty Under Article 21 Includes Right to Travel Abroad” — Bail Restrictions Must Be Reasonable
Invoking the constitutional guarantee of liberty under Article 21, the Court placed strong reliance on Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and Satish Chandra Verma v. Union of India, observing that:
“The expression ‘personal liberty’ under Article 21 includes the right to go abroad… Such a right cannot be curtailed except through fair and just procedure.”
In doing so, the Court observed that the blanket prohibition on foreign travel and retention of passport were unreasonable given the petitioner’s business requirements, lack of flight risk, and demonstrated willingness to cooperate. The petitioner had shown that:
He is Director of M/s Kalivahan Rubber Pvt Ltd, and involved in international procurement and expansion.
His wife and family reside in India, and his passport was near expiration.
He had previously complied with all legal requirements, and was ready to provide affidavits and additional security.
“GST Evasion Case Is Not of the Same Gravity as POCSO or Sedition” — Court Distinguishes Past Precedents to Justify Modification
The Court carefully analysed the prosecution’s reliance on Barun Chandra Thakur, Disha A. Ravi, and Aparna Purohit, and found them inapplicable on facts, noting:
“In Barun Chandra Thakur, the charges were under the POCSO Act, involving heinous crimes, whereas the present case concerns alleged GST evasion triable by a Magistrate.”
The Court reiterated the principle enunciated in Parvez Noordin Lokhandwalla v. State of Maharashtra that:
“Freedom to travel abroad is a valuable human right… The condition for seeking permission may be regulated, but not deleted altogether.”
“Regulate, Not Delete” — Court Modifies Conditions to Permit Travel with Disclosure and Security Safeguards
Accepting the business needs of the petitioner while also safeguarding the trial process, the Court modified the travel-related bail conditions as follows:
The requirement of seeking prior permission for every trip was substituted with a condition to file a detailed affidavit before the trial court prior to each foreign trip, disclosing:
Date of departure and return
Airport details
Copies of tickets and visa
Foreign address, mobile number, and email ID
The deposit of passport was relaxed and the passport ordered to be returned to the petitioner. A photocopy was to be retained by the trial court for record.
An additional security of ₹5,00,000 was to be furnished within 30 days in the form of a Fixed Deposit, liable to forfeiture upon violation of bail conditions.
The petitioner was prohibited from travelling abroad after the case is fixed for final arguments, unless the prosecution caused delay, in which case the petitioner could seek appropriate directions.
“Liberty Must Be Balanced With Judicial Prudence” — Ends of Justice Demand Flexible Conditions, Not Rigid Prohibition
The Court concluded that:
“The alleged evasion of ₹8.75 crores, though not trivial, does not warrant an absolute embargo on professional mobility, especially when the petitioner has demonstrated bona fides, family ties in India, and willingness to face trial.”
Quoting from Sumit Mehta v. State (NCT of Delhi), the Court reminded:
“Any condition has to be reasonable, permissible in the circumstances, and should not defeat the order of grant of bail.”
This judgment sends a clear message that bail is not a punitive mechanism, and personal liberty under Article 21 cannot be choked by rigid conditions when the ends of justice can be equally served by regulation rather than restriction. It affirms the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS to revisit and tailor bail conditions in light of evolving circumstances.
“Conditions must be tailored to the person, the offence, and the facts — not cut from the cloth of suspicion and fear.”
Date of Judgment: 12 September 2025
