IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.959 OF 2008 ALONGWITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.960 OF 2008 Mukesh Shah & Anr. .. Petitioners (In both the petitions) Vs. Traxpo Enterprises Pvt Ltd & Anr. .. Respondents (In both the petitions) --- Mr.S.V.Marwadi for the petitioners in both the petitions. Mr.Rajendra Shirodkar with Ms.Heena G. Acharya for the respondent No.1 in both the petitions. Mr.P.A.Pol, A.P.P for the State in both the petitions. --- CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. : A.S.OKA, J. : A.S.OKA, J. DATE DATE DATE : 10th September 2008. : 10th September 2008. : 10th September 2008. JUDGMENT:> JUDGMENT:> JUDGMENT:> . Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent. Rule. Respondents waive service. Taken up for hearing. The petitioners have been arraigned as 2nd and 3rd accused in complaints filed by the 1st respondent alleging commission of offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. : 2 : 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners states that for the time being he is not pressing the prayer for quashing the prosecution and he is confining the challenge in these petitions to orders dated 05th March 2008 passed by the learned Magistrate. The submission is that long after the bail was granted in favour of the petitioners, the learned Magistrate had no power to impose additional conditions by passing the order dated 05th March 2008. He submitted that the impugned order is without jurisdiction. He states that the petitioners are very much available in Mumbai and that unless exemption is granted by the trial Court, the petitioners will appear before the trial Court on the dates fixed in the complaints. 3. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent is that there may not be any express power vesting in the learned Magistrate under Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to impose such additional conditions, but the order dated 05th March 2008 has been passed to ensure that the petitioners remain present and the trial of the complaint is not delayed. He, therefore, submitted that no interference is called for. : 3 : 4. I have considered the submissions. The order dated 05th March 2008 has been passed on application dated 27th February 2008 filed by the 1st respondent (complainant). It is pointed out in the application that the petitioners were not attending the trial Court inspite of directions issued by the Magistrate’s Court and therefore a condition be imposed directing the petitioners not to leave jurisdiction of Mumbai without prior permission of the trial Court. By order dated 05th March 2008, the petitioners have been directed not to leave India without prior permission of the Court and the petitioners have been directed to attend the Court on 10th March 2008 for furnishing fresh bail bonds containing the aforesaid condition. The learned Judge also directed that the passport authority be informed about the said direction. 5. In the impugned order, the learned Judge has observed that order dated 16th October 2007 was passed by him releasing the petitioners on bail. By the impugned order, the learned Judge has purported to incorporate an additional condition in the order granting bail and has infact directed the petitioners to execute fresh bail bonds containing the said additional condition. If the petitioners had committed breach of : 4 : conditions, if any, in the order granting bail, the learned Judge could have always taken necessary coercive action against the petitioners in accordance with provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. However, when the order granting bail was subsisting, there was no jurisdiction or power vesting in the learned Magistrate to incorporate a further condition adeverse to the accused in the order granting bail passed by him earlier which had attained finality. The learned Magistrate could not have issued directions to the petitioners to execute fresh bail bonds containing the additional condition. Only on this ground the impugned order will have to be quashed and set aside. At the same time it must be noted that the learned counsel for the petitioners on instructions of the petitioners has stated that the petitioners will remain present before the trial Court on the respective dates fixed in the complaints unless their personal presence is exempted. The said statement is accepted. 6. Hence, I pass the following order: (i) The prayer for quashing the complaint is not pressed. However, all contentions raised in that behalf are expressly kept open. : 5 : (ii) The assurance given by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners which is recorded above is accepted. (iii) The impugned judgments and orders dated 05th March 2008 are quashed and set aside. (iv) Writ Petition is partly allowed in above terms with no orders as to costs. (v) The parties are directed to appear before the learned Magistrate on 06th October 2008 for fixing the schedule of hearing of the case. (A.S.Oka,J)