PARVEZ NOORDIN LOKHANDWALLA versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.

Citation: [2020] 11 S.C.R. 117 · Decided: 01-10-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
117
PARVEZ NOORDIN LOKHANDWALLA
v.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 648 of 2020)
OCTOBER 01, 2020
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
INDIRA BANERJEE, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss.437, 439 – Bail –
Nature of conditions imposed – Right to travel abroad – FIR lodged
against appellant in 2014 alleging forgery – Appellant eventually
arrested in 2020 – High Court granted conditional interim bail to
the appellant for eight weeks – However, declined to relax the
conditions imposed to permit him to visit the US – Held: Conditions
which a court imposes for the grant of bail have to balance the public
interest in the enforcement of criminal justice with the rights of the
accused – Conditions imposed must bear a proportional relationship
to the purpose of imposing such conditions – Appellant is an Indian
citizen and holds an Indian passport – A large amount of litigation is
pending between the appellant and the complainant – Appellant has
regularly travelled between the US and India on as many as sixteen
occasions between 2015 and 2020 – High Court’s view that he has no
contact with India is contrary to the material on record – FIR lodged
against him should not in itself prevent him from travelling to the US,
where he is a resident since 1985, particularly when serious
consequences would ensue in terms of the invalidation of the Green
Card if he were not permitted to travel – Appellant permitted to travel
to the US for eight weeks subject to furnishing undertaking as
directed – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.420, 467, 468, 469, 470, 471 and
474.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The language of Section 437(3) of the CrPC
which uses the expression “any condition… otherwise in the
interest of justice” has been construed in several decisions of
this court. Though the competent court is empowered to exercise
its discretion to impose “any condition” for the grant of bail under
Sections 437 (3) and 439 (1) (a) of the CrPC, the discretion of the
court has to be guided by the need to facilitate the administration
[2020] 11 S.C.R. 117
117
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
118
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 11 S.C.R.
of justice, secure the presence of the accused and ensure that
the liberty of the accused is not misused to impede the
investigation, overawe the witnesses or obstruct the course of
justice. [Para 14][127-C-D]
1.2 The private complaint which is the genesis of the present
proceedings was instituted in January 2014. The gravamen of the
allegation is that the appellant has forged and fabricated the Power
of Attorney of 19 December 2011 of his brother. The co-accused
was granted bail by the Sessions Judge Thane on 16 April 2018.
This Court is called upon to decide only whether the appellant
should be permitted to travel to the US for eight weeks. In evaluating
this issue, the Court must have regard to the nature of the allegations,
the conduct of the appellant and above all, the need to ensure that
he does not pose a risk of evading the prosecution. The appellant
has regularly travelled between the US and India on as many as
sixteen occasions between 2015 and 2020. He has maintained a close
contact with India. The view of the High Court that he has no contact
with India is contrary to the material on record. The conditions which
a court imposes for the grant of bail – in this case temporary bail –
have to balance the public interest in the enforcement of criminal
justice with the rights of the accused. The human right to dignity
and the protection of constitutional safeguards should not become
illusory by the imposition of conditions which are disproportionate
to the need to secure the presence of the accused, the proper course
of investigation and eventually to ensure a fair trial. The conditions
which are imposed by the court must bear a proportional relationship
to the purpose of imposing the conditions. The nature of the risk
which is posed by the grant of permission as sought in this case
must be carefully evaluated in each case. As far as the furnishing of
sureties is concerned, it is stated, on instructions, that the directions
of the High Court have been complied with. In regard to the
surrender of the appellant, the Court has been apprised of the fact
that as a result of the lock down occasioned by the outbreak of Covid-
19, the High Court on the judicial side passed successive orders on
26 March 2020, 15 April 2020 and 15 June 2020 extending its interim
orders. In the meantime, to establish hi

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.