2019 (10) TMI 1527 - SCH - Indian Laws

Seeking modification of orders made previously, which had granted anticipatory bail to him - condition of having to secure prior permission, before travelling abroad - HELD THAT - This court is of the opinion that since the charge sheet had been filed, there was no material alteration in the facts, justifying the High Court to modify the conditions governing the grant of anticipatory bail. Significantly, an identical application for modification of the conditions of bail was made earlier by the respondent, which did not meet with success; he withdrew that application. There could be no gainsaying to that the right to travel abroad is a valuable one and an integral part of the right to personal liberty. Equally, however, the pre condition of securing prior permission before travelling abroad is a crucial ingredient which undoubtedly was engrafted as a condition for the grant of anticipatory bail in this case. Mere inconvenience in the matter of approaching the court, therefore absent of any significant change of circumstances (i.e. framing of charges or no significant or serious material emerging during the trial, in the course of deposition of key witnesses, as to the role of the respondent), ought not to have led to dilution of the terms of the High Court s previous consistent orders. At best, the condition for seeking permission before travelling abroad could have been regulated, not deleted altogether. This Court is of the opinion that the impugned order cannot be sustained; it is accordingly set aside. The condition originally imposed upon the respondent as a part of the order granting anticipatory bail to secure prior permission before travelling abroad is hereby restored. At the same time, the trial court is enjoined and directed to deal with the application seeking permission, whenever made, as expeditiously as possible and in any case, ensure that orders are made within one week of filing it (i.e., application seeking prior permission). It goes without saying that such orders shall be made after considering the view of the CBI and taking note of relevant factors, and at the same time, ensuring that reasonable period before undertaking the travel is also given. The appeal is allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Modification of conditions governing anticipatory bail.
2. Validity of the modification in the conditions of bail.
3. Right to travel abroad as part of personal liberty.
4. Consideration of significant change in circumstances for modifying bail conditions.

Analysis:

1. The respondent had sought modification of the conditions of anticipatory bail granted by the Punjab & Haryana High Court. The father of the victim challenged the modifications made in the bail conditions, leading to the matter being brought before the Supreme Court.

2. The Supreme Court reviewed the facts of the case, where the respondent was granted interim bail, which was later made absolute with conditions, including seeking prior permission to travel abroad. The respondent filed multiple applications for modification of bail conditions, arguing that the conditions were cumbersome and inconvenient due to frequent international travel.

3. The High Court, while modifying the bail conditions, considered the value of personal liberty and the necessity of restrictions on travel. It referred to judgments emphasizing personal liberty and dispensed with the requirement of prior permission for travel, based on the respondent's past travel history and participation in conferences abroad.

4. The petitioner argued that the modification of bail conditions was erroneous and contrary to the law. The respondent contended that since the charge-sheet had been filed, severe conditions impeding the right to travel abroad were unwarranted. The Supreme Court noted that no significant change in circumstances justified the modification and reinstated the condition of seeking prior permission for travel abroad.

5. The Court emphasized the importance of the right to travel abroad as part of personal liberty but upheld the condition of prior permission for international travel. It directed the trial court to expeditiously handle any future applications for travel permission, ensuring prompt consideration while taking into account the views of the investigating agency.

6. Ultimately, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order and restoring the original condition of securing prior permission before traveling abroad, emphasizing the need for expeditious handling of such applications by the trial court.