Section 362 CrPC No Bar To Modifying Bail Conditions, Allahabad High Court Rules; Revokes ₹64 Lakh Deposit Imposed on 77-Year-Old After Twelve Years

The Allahabad High Court’s Lucknow Bench has ruled that Section 362 CrPC — which bars courts from altering their judgments or final orders — does not apply to the modification of bail conditions, which are merely interlocutory in nature.

Justice Subhash Vidyarthi allowed a petition filed under Section 482 CrPC by Baldev Raj Arora, a 77-year-old man who had been compelled for twelve years to maintain a ₹64,00,000 fixed deposit in favour of the Airports Authority of India as a precondition for his bail, according to LiveLaw.

Background: How We Got Here

The case has its roots in a 2011 CBI FIR alleging that M/S Bright Aracon submitted inflated bills for cement supply during an apron expansion project at Varanasi Airport, causing a wrongful loss of ₹25,74,065 to the exchequer.

Baldev Raj Arora was not named in the original FIR but was subsequently charge-sheeted as a Director of the company. His bail, granted in December 2013, came attached with the onerous condition of a renewable fixed deposit of ₹64,00,000 in a nationalised bank in favour of the AAI — to be maintained until the conclusion of trial.

• The petitioner approached the court through a Section 482 CrPC application in the matter of Baldev Raj Arora vs. CBI/ACB Lko — reported as 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 347 — before Justice Subhash Vidyarthi of the Lucknow Bench.
• The CBI opposed the petition, contending that the court had become functus officio after deciding the original bail application, relying on a 2022 coordinate bench judgment in Aparna Purohit vs. State of UP.
• By the time the matter was heard, the trial had not been proceeding, leaving the now-77-year-old petitioner indefinitely deprived of his funds, according to LiveLaw.

The Ruling — Key Findings

Justice Vidyarthi held, unequivocally, that a bail order does not constitute a “judgment or final order disposing of a case” within the meaning of Section 362 CrPC and is therefore open to modification on changed circumstances, as reported by LiveLaw.

In the court’s own words: “an order granting bail is a merely an interlocutory order and it would not fall within the scope and ambit of the phrase ‘a judgment or final order disposing of a case’ used in Section 362 Cr.P.C.”

The bench placed heavy reliance on the Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling in Ramadhar Sahu vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 945, which explicitly held that the Section 362 CrPC prohibition does not bar variation of bail conditions based on changed circumstances.

The Court additionally referred to the Supreme Court’s judgments in Sumit Mehta vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2013) and Gajanan Dattatray Gore vs. State of Maharashtra (2025), stressing that criminal proceedings are not meant for the realisation of disputed dues.

Crucially, the bench declared the 2022 coordinate bench decision in Aparna Purohit to be per incuriam, finding that it had failed to notice the binding Supreme Court precedents cited before Justice Vidyarthi, according to LiveLaw.

The court further held that its inherent powers to intervene do not flow solely from Section 482 CrPC but are constitutionally vested in the High Court under Article 215 of the Constitution of India, which recognises it as a superior Court of Record.

Directing immediate relief, the court ordered that the ₹64,00,000 fixed deposit, together with all accrued interest, be released to the petitioner within 30 days of the order.

Reactions & What’s Next

Senior Advocate Purnendu Chakravarty, appearing with Advocates Pranjal Jain and Pratyush Shahi, represented the petitioner before the Lucknow Bench. Advocate Aakash Prasad, with Advocates Shashwat Dwivedi and Ishan Khanna, appeared for the CBI, according to LiveLaw.

The CBI’s argument that the court had become functus officio was squarely rejected. With the 30-day release window now running, the petitioner stands to recover both principal and interest accrued over more than a decade.

The ruling carries significant precedential weight, clarifying that Section 362 CrPC’s bar is confined strictly to final orders and judgments and cannot be stretched to shield onerous bail conditions from judicial review — particularly where the trial itself is stalled.