Judgment:
P.K. Misra, J.
1. In this application Under Section 401 read with Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code'), the petitioner has sought for modification of conditions of bail imposed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar.
2. Petitioner was arrested in connection with S. P. E. Case No. 44/94(1). His application for bail was allowed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar, by order dated 31-7-1996 in Criminal Misc. Case No. 427 of 1996. While enlarging the petitioner on bail, the aforesaid Court imposed, inter alia, the following condition:
'1. He shall not leave Bhubaneswar Sub-Division without obtaining prior permission from the Court below till completion of the investigation and submission of the final form.'
Subsequently, the petitioner filed an application Under Section 439(1)(b) of the Code before the said Court for modifying the first condition as indicated above. Relying upon the decision of this Court reported in (1992) 5 OCR 156 (K. Satyanarayana Subudhi v. Union of India), the Court below rejected the application for modification on the ground that it had no jurisdiction to alter any of the conditions. Against the aforesaid order dated 19-8-1996 rejecting the application for modification of the bail order, the petitioner has filed this application Under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Code.
3. Mr. S.M. Mohapatra appearing on behalf of the petitioner invited my attention to the order of the High Court dated 16-9-1995 passed in Criminal Misc. Case No.2035 of 1995 (Kunmun alias Rashmi Ranjan Das v. State of Orissa) wherein it was indicated :
'......Since the conditions have been imposed by the learned Sessions Judge, it is open to the petitioner to move him for reconsideration and/or deletion of condition indicated in the order. If any such application is made, the learned Sessions Judge may consider and dispose of the same in accordance with law.''
Relying upon the aforesaid observation, Mr. Mohapatra. the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the order of the Court below refusing to entertain the application for modification of the bail order is not correct. In the order relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner no reference has been made to the earlier decision of this Court reported in (1992) 5 OCR 156. In the facts of the present case, I do not think it necessary to delve into the question as to whether there is any conflict of opinion in the aforesaid two decisions of the High Court. For the reasons indicated below, I consider it a fit case where the first condition imposed by the Court below should be suitably altered.
4. Admittedly, the petitioner is a sitting M. L. A. and in that capacity he has to attend many official meetings and functions at places beyond Bhubaneswar. It may not be always possible on the part of the petitioner to seek the prior permission of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate to go beyond Bhubaneswar Sub-Division. From the submissions made by the petitioner as well as the learned retainer Counsel for C.B.I., it is apparent that the investigation into the case so far as the petitioner is concerned is practically over though charge-sheet is yet to be filed. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I modify the condition No. 1 and instead direct that the following conditions should be imposed :
1. (a) The petitioner shall not enter inside the territorial jurisdiction of Tomka Police Station : and
(b) The petitioner may leave the jurisdiction of Bhubaneswar Sub-Division by giving at least three days' prior intimation to the S.P., C.B. I./ the Investigating Officer.
5. The Criminal Revision is accordingly allowed and the order dated. 31-7-1996 in Criminal Misc. Case No. 427 of 1996 of the Court below is modified to the extent indicated above.