IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.865 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO.865 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO.865 OF 2007. Sultan Kamruddin Dharani. ..Petitioner. versus 1. The Union of India. 2. The Deputy Director, DRI, Mumbai. 3. The State of Maharashtra. ..Respondents. .... Mr.Uday Warunjikar & Mr.S.N. Kantawala, for the Petitioner. Ms. Purnima Kantharia, for the Respondent No.1. Mr.D.P.Adsule, APP, for the Respondent-State. .... CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.S. OKA, J. A.S. OKA, J. A.S. OKA, J. THE DATE ON WHICH JUDGMENT IS RESERVED : 30TH AUGUST 2008. THE DATE OF WHICH JUDGMENT IS PRONOUNCED : 19TH SEPTEMBER 2008. 1. The Petitioner has invoked the power of this Court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Code of 1973") for challenging that part of the order dated 15th April 2006 passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 3rd Court, Esplanade, Mumbai, by which the Petitioner was directed to deposit the passport with the Customs Department and by which the petitioner was directed not to leave India without : 2 : 2 : 2 : the permission of the Court in writing. The question which is raised for consideration in this Petition is whether a Court under the said Code of 1973 while granting bail in a bailable offence can impose a condition of surrender of passport and further condition that the accused shall not travel abroad without permission of the Court. 2. The case of the Petitioner is that the officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence arrested the Petitioner under section 104 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act of 1962") for an alleged offence punishable under section 135(1)(ii) of the said Act of 1962. The Petitioner was arrested on 12th April 2006. A remand application was filed before the learned Magistrate on the same day. The learned Magistrate granted remand though it was contended that the offence was a bailable offence. The Petitioner applied for bail and by order dated 15th April 2006, the learned Magistrate enlarged the Petitioner on bail. The relevant part of the order passed by the learned Magistrate reads thus :- : 3 : 3 : 3 : "As far as accused Sultan K. Dharani, he be released on bail on executing PR & SB of Rs.three lacs with permission to deposit cost security in lieu of SB. If he possess the passport, then he shall deposit it with the department and if not, then, shall make an affidavit to that effect, immediately, on his release. He shall not leave India without permission of the Court in writing." 3. Criminal Application No.1564/2006 was filed by the Petitioner in this Court seeking modification of the aforesaid condition. In this Petition, it is stated that the said Criminal Application was withdrawn by the Petitioner. It is stated in the Petition that without prejudice to his rights and contentions, the Petitioner has applied under section 137(3) of the said Act of 1962 for compounding of the offence and the said Application is still pending. The Petitioner has stated in the Petition that the Petitioner has received an invitation : 4 : 4 : 4 : to visit New York and therefore, he has filed the present Petition. 4. The submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that the offence alleged against the Petitioner was under section 135(1)(ii) of the said Act of 1962. He submitted that as section 123 of the said Act was not applicable to the goods involved in the case, the offence was bailable. He placed reliance on a decision of this Court in the case of Subhash Choudhary v/s Deepak Jyala [2005 (179) E.L.T. 532 (Bom.)]. He also placed reliance on a decision of the learned Single Judge of Kerala High Court in support of the contention that while granting bail in a bailable offence, the learned Magistrate cannot impose any condition and in particular, the condition of surrender of passport. He relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Gujarat and Another v/s Lalsingh Kishansingh [AIR 1981 SC page 368]. He submitted that the Apex Court has held that if an accused was arrested for commission of a bailable offence, it is the legal obligation of the police to release the accused on bail in view of section 496 of the Code of Criminal : 5 : 5 : 5 : Procedure, 1898 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the old Code’). He also placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of T. Barai v/s. Henry Ah Hoe and Another [1983 (1) SCC 177]. He submitted that under section 436(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the said Code’), there is an unfettered right vesting in the accused to be enlarged on bail when he is ready to offer bail. 5. The learned Counsel appearing for the first and the second Respondents did not dispute that the offence alleged against the Petitioner was a bailable offence. She invited my attention to various averments made in the affidavit-in-reply of Shri K. A. Shaikh, Assistant Director, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence of Mumbai. She submitted that the case involves a large scale conspiracy relating to the import of goods of the value of Rs.150 crores involving duty evasion of Rs.65 crores. She submitted that there is an apprehension that the if the Petitioner is permitted to travel abroad, he will not remain available for the purpose of investigation and it will be very difficult to secure his presence. She placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in : 6 : 6 : 6 : the case of Hazari Lal Gupta v/s Rameshwar Prasad and another [1972 Cri.L.J. 298]. She also relied upon another decision of the Apex Court in the case of Talab Haji Hussain v/s. Madhukar Purshottam Mondkar and Another [1958 Cri.L.J. 701] in support of her submission that in a given case, while enlarging an accused on bail where offence alleged is bailable, the Court can impose suitable conditions. She submitted that there is no prohibition provided in the Statute which prevents a Court from imposing suitable conditions. 6. I have carefully considered the submissions. It is not in dispute that the offence alleged against the Petitioner is a bailable offence. The question is whether the learned magistrate while enlarging the Petitioner on bail in a bailable offence, could have imposed conditions such as a condition requiring the accused to surrender his passport. The question is whether the learned Magistrate could have imposed a condition that accused will not travel abroad without prior permission of the concerned Court. : 7 : 7 : 7 : 7. Under the said Code, the offences have been categorised into two classes. One is of the offences which are bailable and the second is of the offences which are non-bailable. The powers of the Court to grant bail in both the categories of the cases are in Chapter XXXIII of the said Code of 1973. Section 436 of the said Code read thus :- "436. 436. 436. In what cases bail to be taken.- In what cases bail to be taken.- In what cases bail to be taken.- (1) When any person other than a person accused of a non-bailable offence is arrested or detained without warrant by an officer in charge of a police station, or appears or is brought before a Court, and is prepared at any time while in the custody of such officer or at any stage of the proceeding before such Court to give bail, such person shall be released on bail : Provided that such officer or Court, if he or it thinks fit, [may, and shall, if such person is indigent and is unable to furnish surety, instead of taking bail] from such person, discharge him on his executing a bond without : 8 : 8 : 8 : sureties for his appearance as hereinafter provided : Provided further that nothing in this section shall be deemed to affect the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 116 [or section 446-A]. [Explanation .- Where a person is unable to give bail within a week of the date of his arrest, it shall be a sufficient ground for the officer or the Court to presume that he is an indigent person for the purposes of this proviso.] (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where a person has failed to comply with the conditions of the bail-bond as regards the time and place of attendance, the Court may refuse to release him on bail, when on a subsequent occasion in the same case he appears before the Court or is brought in custody and any such refusal shall be without prejudice to the powers of the Court to call : 9 : 9 : 9 : upon any person bound by such bond to pay the penalty thereof under section 446." 8. Sub-section (1) of section 436 provides that when any person other than a person accused of a non-bailable offence is arrested, or detained without warrant by an officer incharge of a Police Station, or appears or is brought before the Court, and is prepared at any time while in the custody of such officer or at any stage of the proceeding before the Court to give bail, the said person shall be released on bail. Thus, the said provision is applicable to all offences which are not non-bailable. The offences which are non-bailable are obviously the bailable offences. Thus, a person alleged of commission of a bailable offence is detained or arrested by an officer incharge of a police station, even the said police officer is under an obligation to release the person on bail. If such person arrested is brought before the Court, he is entitled to be enlarged on bail as a matter of right, provided he is prepared to give bail. Even in a case where a person who is accused of a bailable offence appears before the Court on his own, he is entitled to : 10 : 10 : 10 : released on bail as a matter of right provided he offers to give bail. Therefore, in a case where a person is accused of commission of a bailable offence, there is no choice to the officer who has detained him or arrested him and to the Court before which he is produced to deny bail to such person provided the said person is ready to offer the bail. 9. Section 437 of the Code of 1973 gives power to the Courts other than this Court and the Court of Sessions to release an accused on bail in case of non-bailable offence. Section 439 deals with the power of Sessions Court and this Court of grant of bail. Section 439(1) reads thus :- "439. 439. 439. Special powers of High Court or Court of Special powers of High Court or Court of Special powers of High Court or Court of Session Session Session regarding bail.- regarding bail.- regarding bail.- (1) A High Court or Court of Session may direct - (a) that any person accused of an offence and in custody be released on bail, and if the offence is of the nature specified in sub-section (3) of section 437, may impose any condition which it : 11 : 11 : 11 : considers necessary for the purposes mentioned in that sub-section; (b) that any condition imposed by a Magistrate when releasing any person on bail be set aside or modified : Provided that the High Court or the Court of Session shall, before granting bail to a person who is accused of an offence which is triable exclusively by the Court of Session or which, though not so triable, is punishable with imprisonment for life, give notice of the application for bail to the Public Prosecutor unless it is, for reasons to be recorded in writing, of opinion that it is not practicable to give such notice." 10. Under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 439, there is a power vesting in this Court to impose any condition which is considered to be necessary where the offence alleged is punishable with imprisonment which may extend to 7 years or more or where the alleged : 12 : 12 : 12 : offence is under Chapters VI, XVI or XXVII of the Indian Penal Code or abatement of, or conspiracy or attempt to commit, any such offence. Under Clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 439, the concerned Court or this Court has jurisdiction to set aside or modify a condition imposed by the Magistrate while releasing a person on bail. From section 437 and 439 of the said Code, it is apparent that when an accused is alleged of commission of a non-bailable offence, the bail is not a matter of right. In a given case the accused may acquire a right to be released on bail on account of failure to file the charge-sheet within specified time. While granting bail either under section 437 of 439, the Court can impose appropriate conditions. 11. It will be necessary at this stage to refer to section 441 of the said Code which reads thus :- "441. 441. 441. Bond of accused and sureties.- Bond of accused and sureties.- Bond of accused and sureties.- (1) Before any person is released on bail or released on his own bond, a bond for such sum of money as the police officer or Court, as the case may be, thinks sufficient shall be executed by such : 13 : 13 : 13 : person, and, when he is released on bail, by one or more sufficient sureties conditioned that such person shall attend at the time and place mentioned in the bond, and shall continue so to attend until otherwise directed by the police officer or Court, as the case may be. (2) Where any condition is imposed for the release of any person on bail, the bond shall also contain that condition. (3) If the case so requires, the bond shall also bind the person released on bail to appear when called upon at the High Court, Court of Session or other Court to answer the charge. (4) For the purpose of determining whether the sureties are fit or sufficient, the Court may accept affidavits in proof of the facts contained therein relating to the sufficiency or fitness of the sureties, or, if it considers necessary, may either hold an inquiry itself or cause an inquiry to be made by a Magistrate : 14 : 14 : 14 : subordinate to the Court, as to such sufficiency or fitness." 12. It is apparent that in case of a bailable offence, the police officer or the Court, as the case may be, has to take a bond for such sum of money as the police officer or the Court, as the case may be, think sufficient. One or more sureties can also be taken. The bond to be taken in such cases is for ensuring attendance of the accused before the Court and/or before the police, as the case may be. 13. The grant of bail has a result of setting a person arrested at liberty on surety being taken for his appearance on a day or place certain. The surety taken is called as ‘bail’. Under the old Code, Section 496 conferred absolute right to bail to a person accused of commission of bailable offence. The said absolute right has been recognised by sub-section (1) of section 436 of the said Code. The difference between the old section 496 and section 436 of the present Code is that sub-section (2) of section 436 did not find place in : 15 : 15 : 15 : section 496. Sub-section (2) of section 436 gives power to the Court to decline bail in the event a person who has been enlarged on bail under sub-section (1) of section 436 fails to comply with the condition of bail bond as regards time and place of attendance. 14. It will be necessary to refer to the decision of the Apex Court in the Talab Haji Hussain (Supra). The Apex Court had an occasion to consider the provisions of section 496 to 498 of the old Code. In paragraph no.3 of the said decision, the Apex Court has held thus :- "(3) There is no doubt that under S.496 a person accused of a bailable offence is entitled to be released on bail pending his trial. As soon as As soon as As soon as it it it appears that the accused person is prepared appears that the accused person is prepared appears that the accused person is prepared to to to give bail, the police officer or the Court, give bail, the police officer or the Court, give bail, the police officer or the Court, before before before whom he offers to give bail, is bound to whom he offers to give bail, is bound to whom he offers to give bail, is bound to release release release him on such terms as to bail as may him on such terms as to bail as may him on such terms as to bail as may appear appear appear to the officer or the Court to be to the officer or the Court to be to the officer or the Court to be reasonable. reasonable. reasonable. It would even be open to the officer or the Court to discharge such person on executing his bond as provided in the section : 16 : 16 : 16 : instead of taking bail from him." (Emphasis added) 15. In the aforesaid case before the Apex Court, the Appellant was charged with commission of a bailable offence. The Appellant was enlarged on bail by the learned Magistrate. On application made by the complainant for cancellation of bail, the learned Magistrate declined to cancel the bail on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. An application was made by the Applicant before this Court invoking inherent powers of this Court under section 561-A of the old Code. This Court took a view that under the inherent powers of this Court, bail can be cancelled. This Court proceeded to cancel the bail granted in favour of the Appellant. The order of this Court was challenged in the Apex Court. The argument before the Apex Court was that notwithstanding the order of cancellation of bail passed by the High Court, the Appellant can again move the Court under section 496 for grant of bail and the Trial Court is bound to grant bail as the right of the Appellant to be enlarged on bail in a bailable offence : 17 : 17 : 17 : was an absolute and indefeasible right. While dealing with the said contention, the Apex Court held that the commitment of the Appellant to the custody was not by reason of the fact that he is alleged to have committed a bailable offence, but the reason for his commitment to custody was a judicial order passed on the ground that he has forfeited his bail. The Apex Court held that in such a case the Appellant was not entitled to fall back on his rights under section 496 of the old Code. In that context, the Apex Court observed that indefeasible right conferred under section 496 will not be available to the Appellant. However, as stated earlier, in paragraph 3 of the Judgment, the Apex Court upheld the right to bail of an accused under section 496 of the old Code, provided the accused is willing to give bail. On plain reading of section 496 of the old Code and section 436(1) of the said Code, it is crystal clear that when a person is charged with commission of a bailable offence, he gets an absolute right of being enlarged on bail as soon as he shows his willingness to give bail. In the light of this absolute right created under section 436 of the said Code, it will be necessary to consider whether any condition can be imposed by the learned : 18 : 18 : 18 : Magistrate or the Police Officer while granting bail. 16. Perusal of section 436 of the Code of 1973 shows that there is no provision therein which gives power to the Court to impose any condition while enlarging an accused on bail in a case where bailable offence is alleged. In fact, the first proviso of the said section lays down that if an accused is indigent and is unable to furnish surety, the Court is under an obligation to discharge him on his executing a bond without without sureties for his appearance. The explanation to sub-section (1) of section 436 provids that when a person is unable to give bail within a week of his arrest, it shall be a sufficient ground for the Officer or a Court to presume that he is an indigent person for the purposes of this proviso. Thus, the law makes it clear that when an accused who is alleged of commission of a bailable offence is unable to furnish bail in the form of surety within a week from his arrest, he has to be discharged on his executing a bond. Thus, not only sub-section (1) but the first proviso and the explanation thereto clearly show that an unfettered right is granted to be enlarged on bail to a person : 19 : 19 : 19 : other than a person accused of non-bailable offence arrested or detained without any warrant by an Officer in charge of a police station or when such a person appears or is brought before a Court. Such a person has to be enlarged on bail provided he is prepared to give bail. If such person is indigent and is unable to furnish surety, by dispensing with the requirement of furnishing bail or surety, he has to be discharged on his executing a personal bond without sureties. If such a person is unable to give bail within a period of one week from the date of his arrest, by legal fiction, the law presumes that the person is an indigent person and thus he will have to be discharged on executing a personal bond without sureties. The decision of the Apex Court in the case of Talab Haji Hussain (supra) deals with a case where bail of an accused is cancelled and he is arrested and committed to the custody. In such a case, the Apex Court observed that the commitment of the accused to the custody is as a result of the judicial order passed on the ground that he has forfeited his bail and that his subsequent conduct shows that he cannot be at large. The Apex Court held that in such a case when the accused seeks bail, he cannot take : 20 : 20 : 20 : benefit of section 496 of the old Code and claim unqualified and absolute right to be released on bail. The same is the principle incorporated in sub-section (2) of section 436 of the Code of 1973. Therefore, the law laid down in the said case operates at a stage when bail granted to an accused of bailable offence is cancelled and he is taken in custody. 17. The decision in the case of Hajarilal (supra) does not support the contentions raised by the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.1. This was a case where the Appellant before the Apex Court was arrested for the offence under sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. He was ordered to