Section 362 CrPC Bar is Inapplicable to the Modification of Interlocutory Bail Conditions Under Inherent Powers

The applicant was arraigned as an accused in 2013 for alleged corruption involving forged bills submitted to the Airports Authority of India.

On 19.12.2013, the High Court granted him bail subject to an onerous condition: depositing ₹64,00,000/- as a fixed deposit in favor of the beneficiary.

the prosecution sanction against co-accused government servants was quashed by the High Court (affirmed by the Supreme Court), leading the trial court to close proceedings and consign the file to the record room in 2022 without a conclusion of trial.

The applicant, now 77 years old, filed this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking revocation of the deposit condition, arguing the trial is stalled indefinitely while his funds remain locked.

The Court applied Section 362 Cr.P.C., which bars the alteration of a judgment or final order except for clerical errors.

The principle from Usmanbhai Dawoodbhai Memon v. State of Gujarat and Amar Nath v. State of Haryana establishes that a bail order is an "interlocutory order" and not a "final judgment," thereby exempting it from the bar of Section 362.

The Court followed Ramadhar Sahu v. State of M.P., holding that conditions of bail can be varied based on changed circumstances.

The Court invoked Section 482 Cr.P.C. and Article 215 of the Constitution of India, affirming that the High Court’s inherent power is a constitutional manifestation intended to secure the ends of justice and is not restricted by statutory procedural bars when preventing an abuse of process.

The Court first rejected the CBI's preliminary objection regarding Section 362 Cr.P.C., reasoning that since bail is an interlocutory stage in a pending trial, any order granting it does not finally dispose of the case.

It deemed the contrary view in Aparna Purohit v. State of U.P. as per incuriam for failing to consider the statutory definition of "judgment".

The Court observed that the deposit condition was "unreasonably onerous," violating the principle in Sumit Mehta v. State (NCT of Delhi) that criminal courts should not act as "recovery agents" during bail.

The Court found a significant "change in circumstances": the trial had reached a standstill following the quashing of prosecution sanctions against co-accused, and the trial court had consigned the records.

Given the applicant's advanced age (77) and the indefinite suspension of the trial, the Court determined that continuing to withhold his funds constituted a failure of justice.

The Court revoked the condition requiring the deposit of ₹64,00,000/- and directed the immediate release of the fixed deposit along with accrued interest to the applicant within thirty days.