The Delhi High Court has ruled that a Magistrate cannot modify or add conditions to a bail order after granting bail. The Court clarified that only the High Court or the Sessions Court can alter bail conditions under Section 439(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani delivered the judgment in Shabir Momin & Anr. v. State (NCT of Delhi), Neutral Citation No. 2026:DHC:4866.
The petitioners challenged an order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) that required them to obtain prior court permission before travelling abroad. They approached the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Allowing the petition, the High Court set aside the CJM’s order and restored the original bail conditions.
Bail Granted in 2021 Without Travel Restrictions
The petitioners had secured bail in March 2021 in a case involving offences under Sections 420, 406, 422, 424, 409, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.
The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate granted bail on 23 March 2021. Importantly, the original order imposed no restriction on foreign travel.
More than three years later, in September 2024, the authorised representative of the complainant company filed an application before the CJM. The complainant expressed concern that the accused might abscond and requested travel restrictions.
Acting on the application, the CJM directed the petitioners to obtain prior court permission before leaving India.
Sessions Court Sends Matter Back for Reconsideration
The petitioners challenged the travel restriction before the Sessions Court.
The Sessions Court stayed the operation of the CJM’s order and later directed the Magistrate to reconsider the matter.
However, after reconsideration, the CJM again directed the petitioners to seek court permission before travelling abroad.
Aggrieved by the fresh order, the petitioners moved the Delhi High Court.
High Court Finds Magistrate Lacked Jurisdiction
Justice Bhambhani examined whether the CJM had the authority to introduce a new condition into an existing bail order.
The Court noted that the original bail order did not contain any travel restriction. Therefore, the subsequent order effectively modified a final bail order.
According to the Court, such modification amounted to a review of the original order. Section 362 CrPC expressly prohibits criminal courts from reviewing or altering signed judgments and final orders except to correct clerical or arithmetic errors.
As a result, the Court held that the CJM acted beyond its powers.
Court Rejects “Clarification” Argument
The respondents argued that the travel condition merely clarified the original bail order.
The High Court rejected this submission.
Justice Bhambhani observed that a clarification can only explain an existing ambiguity. It cannot introduce a completely new obligation.
Since the original bail order contained no travel-related condition, no ambiguity existed. Therefore, the CJM could not justify the new requirement as a clarification.
The Court held that the Magistrate’s action directly violated the bar contained in Section 362 CrPC.
Only High Court and Sessions Court Can Modify Bail Conditions
The judgment provides significant clarification on the scope of Section 439(1)(b) CrPC.
Justice Bhambhani held that only the High Court and the Sessions Court possess the statutory power to modify or set aside conditions imposed in a bail order passed by a Magistrate.
A Magistrate does not enjoy parallel or concurrent jurisdiction to alter a bail order after granting it.
The Court further noted that the authorities cited by the respondents involved superior courts exercising powers under Section 439 CrPC. Therefore, those precedents did not support the CJM’s action.
Consequently, the Court declared the impugned order without jurisdiction and non-est in law.
Petitioners’ Conduct Favoured Relief
The Court also considered the conduct of the petitioners during the proceedings.
It noted that the petitioners had travelled abroad several times after obtaining permission from the court. On every occasion, they returned to India without any violation.
The Court further recorded that the petitioners consistently appeared before the trial court, either personally, through video conferencing, or through counsel.
Given this compliance record, the Court found no justification for punitive action.
Moreover, since the travel restriction order itself lacked legal validity, any alleged breach of that order could not attract adverse consequences.
The Court also noted that no party had suffered any prejudice during the trial.
High Court Restores Original Bail Conditions
Allowing the petition, the Delhi High Court set aside the CJM’s order in its entirety.
The Court directed that the petitioners would remain bound only by the conditions contained in the original bail order dated 23 March 2021.
As a result, they no longer need prior court permission to travel abroad.
Case Details
Case: Shabir Momin & Anr. v. State (NCT of Delhi)
Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:4866
Court: Delhi High Court
Judge: Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani
Key Issue: Whether a Magistrate can modify bail conditions after granting bail.
Held: Only the High Court or the Sessions Court can modify or set aside bail conditions under Section 439(1)(b) CrPC. A Magistrate lacks jurisdiction to alter a final bail order.
