The matter originated from a First Information Report lodged by the Central Bureau of Investigation in 2011 alleging that M/S Bright Aracon submitted inflated bills for cement supply during an apron expansion project at Varanasi Airport, resulting in a t Varanasi Airport, causing a wrongful loss of Rs 25,74,065 to the public exchequer. Although the petitioner was not named in the initial FIR, he was subsequently charge‑sheeted as a director of M/s B. R. Arora Private Limited, a constituent member of M/s Bright Aracon. The trial court discharged him from all other charges, leaving a single accusation under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Proceedings against the co‑accused government servants were later quashed by the High Court in 2021 and affirmed by the Supreme Court in October 2024. Consequently, the trial court adjourned the case and directed that the record be kept for possible revival.
In December 2013, while granting bail, the trial court imposed a condition requiring the petitioner to deposit Rs 64,00,000 as a fixed deposit in a nationalised bank, in favour of the Airports Authority of India, to be renewed periodically until the conclusion of the trial. The petitioner, now aged seventy‑seven, contended that this condition had become unreasonably onerous after twelve years and sought its variation or withdrawal.
Parties’ Submissions
The Central Bureau of Investigation opposed the application, arguing that once a bail order is passed, the court becomes functus officio and lacks jurisdiction to alter its terms under Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The agency relied on a 2022 coordinate bench decision in Aparna Purohit versus State of Uttar Pradesh, which held that an application under Section 482 CrPC for modification of bail conditions is barred by the statutory prohibition in Section 362 CrPC.
Counsel for the petitioner countered that Section 482 CrPC preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to secure the ends of justice, and that the prohibition in Section 362 CrPC applies only to judgments or final orders disposing of a case, not to interlocutory bail orders. He further submitted that the court’s inherent authority is also derived from Article 215 of the Constitution, which vests superior courts of record with such powers.
High Court’s Reasoning
Justice Subhash Vidyarthi, writing for the bench, began by examining the text of Section 362 CrPC, which bars alteration or review of a judgment or final order disposing of a case. The bench noted that, according to a series of Supreme Court pronouncements—including Amar Nath v. State of Haryana (1997), VC Shukla v. State through CBI (1979), and Usmanbhai Dawoodbhai Memon v. State of Gujarat (1988)—an order granting bail is neither a judgment nor a final order; it is an interlocutory measure intended to secure the presence of the accused during trial.
The bench placed particular reliance on the Supreme Court’s decision in Ramadhar Sahu v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2023), which explicitly held that the prohibition contemplated in Section 362 CrPC does not extend to situations where an accused seeks variation of bail conditions on the ground of changed circumstances. Additionally, the court referred to Sumit Mehta v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2013) and Gajanan Dattatray Gore v. State of Maharashtra (2025) to emphasise that criminal proceedings are not meant for the realisation of disputed dues but for ensuring the accused’s availability for trial.
In light of these authorities, the High Court characterised the Aparna Purohit ruling as per incuriam for having overlooked the aforementioned Supreme Court judgments. The bench further observed that the High Court’s inherent powers are not solely derived from Section 482 CrPC but are constitutionally vested under Article 215, enabling it to intervene to prevent injustice.
Operative Outcome
Having found the Rs 64 lakh fixed‑deposit condition to be excessively burdensome after a period of twelve years, the bench allowed the petitioner’s application filed under Section 482 CrPC. The condition requiring the deposit of Rs 64,00,000 in favour of the Airports Authority of India was accordingly set aside. The court clarified that the modification does not affect the substantive bail order; the accused remains bound by the other terms of his release, and the trial may proceed as and when the record is revived.
The decision underscores that statutory bars on altering judgments do not impede a superior court’s ability to tailor bail conditions to reflect evolving circumstances, thereby reinforcing the protective scope of inherent judicial powers under the Constitution and the Code of Criminal Procedure.