Accused cannot seek modification of a condition based on which bail was granted
The bail of an accused is determined by a variety of variables. Such as the type of the offence, the severity of the crime, the status of the accused, and whether the accused would try to change the evidences or harass the petitioner after the bail is granted.
The court must also assess whether the accused would flee the country if granted bail or not. If all of these conditions are met, the accused is required to give some surety for a bail. It could be money, a blood relative's assurance, a signed certificate from a government agency, or any other condition imposed by the court.
Once the accused has been granted bail on a certain condition, modifying that term is practically difficult. That is why it is adviced to retain those conditions for guarantee that one might present at bail.
Because once an accused agrees to maintain certain things as surety for bail, he cannot change them, and if he fails to meet the bail requirements, the bail may be terminated.
Hazari Lal Gupta v. Rameshwar Prasad is an interesting case involving the modification of a bail condition.
In this instance, the defendant was a U.K. resident who did business there. He was released on bail on the condition that he surrendered his passport.
He then filed a petition in the High Court under Section 561-A of the Old Code, asking for the passport to be returned so that he may travel overseas. His plea was ruled out by the High Court.
The accused then approached the Supreme Court to modify his bail conditions and obtain permission to travel abroad. After reviewing the case, the Supreme Court declined to modify the bail.
The accused is not liable for the alteration, according to the court, because he has requested bail by reducing the surety of the premise and consented to surrender his passport.
After agreeing to the bail condition and receiving bail, the accused cannot request a change to the bail condition for which bail was granted.
On behalf of the appellant, it is claimed that the court has no power to prevent the accused from travelling overseas after bail is granted by surrendering the passport under sections 496, 497, and 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The court stated that if the appellant did not wish to surrender his passport as a guarantee for the bail and wanted it return the court had to terminate the granted bail.