31.8.2026 01 Crt.No.29 P.A. CRR 1581 of 2026 Debabrata Ghosh Vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr. Mr. T.K. Bhattacharya Mrs. T. Paul Ms. S. Paul …For the Petitioner Mr. Avik Ghatak Mr. Souvick Mitra Ms. Dishani Kanjilal Ms. Shetparna Roy …..For opposite party no. 2 Mr. Shataroop Purkayastha ……..For the State 1. Petitioner herein has assailed the order dated 05.02.2026 (wrongly written as 05.02.2025) by which the court below has rejected petitioner’s prayer dated 15.01.2026 seeking cancellation of the conditions imposed in the bail order dated 05.08.2024, which, states ‘that the accused persons shall not entere into the house of the complainant until further order.’ 2. Being aggrieved by that order the petitioner earlier preferred a Revisional Application before this court for modification of the said order and this court by an order dated 2nd January, 2026, passed in CRR 3653 of 2024, had given liberty to the petitioner to make appropriate prayer before the court below for modification of the condition imposed in the bail order and in the event of making such prayer, the trial court was further directed to dispose of such application within a period of three weeks from the date of making such prayer. 2 3. In terms of the said order, petitioner herein made a prayer before the court below for modification of the said condition in the bail order but the court below by the impugned order rejected petitioner’s such prayer mainly on the ground that ‘the court cannot decide the right title interest in the property of the petitioner/accused or defacto complainant/opposite party as claimed by them. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner and the opposite party (in short OP) No.2 are the joint owners of the house and therefore the petitioner cannot be restrained from entering into his house by imposing a condition in the bail order. He further submits that the petitioner is the owner of 50% share of the said property and there is no dispute about his extent of such share in the house property, nor any such civil dispute is pending between the parties and therefore the trial court was completely erred in observing that he is not supposed to decide the right title interest of the petitioner in the house property. In fact the order impugned which has been passed without assigning proper reason suffers from perversity and is liable to be set aside. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the OP No 2 challenged the maintainability of the instant Revisional Application contending that section 482 and section 397(2) of the Cr.P.C. cannot be resorted to, if there is a specific provision in the Code for the redress of the grievance of the aggrieved party. In the instant case the proper remedy for the petitioner was to prefer application challenging the condition, before appropriate forum, having determination. He further argued that the present proceeding 3 initiated interalia under the provisions of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989 and therefore, if an order which is not an interlocutory order is passed by a Special Judge under the Act of 1989, it is appealable as per section 14A of the Act of 1989. 5. Referring the judgment passed by a co-ordinate Bench of Orissa High Court reported in 2022 3 Crimes HC 291, (Smrutant Rath and Ors. State of Orissa and Another) he contended that under section 14 A of the Act of 1989 there remains no ambiguity that judgment, sentence and orders passed by the learned Special Court under the provision of the Act of 1989 are all appealable and the appeal shall lie before the High Court both for facts as well as law. He submits that where section 397(2) Cr.P.C. prohibits interference in respect of interlocutory orders, section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be availed of to achieve the same objective. He further submits that learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the impugned order is an interlocutory order, even then it would not be permissible to resort to section 482 Cr.P.C. to set aside an interlocutory order. He also pointed out that at the time of making bail prayer, petitioner submitted, that bail may be granted on any terms and conditions, so petitioners now cannot pray for cancellation of such condition. Therefore he submits that the instant application is not maintainable and liable to be rejected. 6. Having heard it appears to me that the petitioner initially preferred a Revisional Application before this High Court against the aforesaid condition imposed in the bail order being CRR 3653 of 2024 and on that occasion this High Court refused to 4 interfere and on the contrary had given liberty to the petitioner to approach before the trial court itself to redress his grievance in respect of the impugned condition. Petitioner accordingly preferred an Application on 15.01.2026. However, by the impugned order learned court below rejected the said prayer with a finding that at the time of granting interim bail, the condition was imposed not to enter into the “house of the complainant” mainly on the consideration that if he is allowed to enter, it will create “complexities” and therefore the same court cannot decide the right title and interest of the property belonging to the accused petitioner or the right title interest of the defacto complainant. 7. Such finding is absolutely a perverse finding based on which the petitioner’s prayer for modification of the bail order was rejected. From the prayer of the petitioner it is clear neither party approached before the court for declaration of their right, title and interest in the property. Therefore, the question that was actually posed before the court was whether such condition amounts to curtailment of the petitioners property right or not which is also a civil right recognized under the constitution. It is settled law that the object of imposing condition in the bail order must satisfy the test of reasonableness, proportionality and necessity. The court below nowhere discussed why a lesser restrictive measure would not suffice to secure the attendance of the petitioner during investigation, inquiry or trial, which is the prime object of imposing condition in a bail order. On the contrary it appears from the bail order dated 05.08.2024 that the accused person has been prevented from entering “complainants house” inspite of the 5 undisputed fact that the accused person is also owner of half share of the property. His main consideration for imposing such condition is mere apprehension that if petitioner is allowed to enter into the house, it will create complexities. It needs no reiteration that imposing condition in the bail order must not be such that in practice it would amount to denial of bail nor object of imposing such condition would be punitive in nature. In the present case the above mentioned condition imposed in the bail order clearly amounts to effective ouster of the petitioner from his residence where he has half share. It has not been stated in the impugned order, beside expressing apprehension of complexities, why such ouster of the petitioner from his residence was the only alternative for the court below to secure the bail order. 8. The Principles governing High Court’s jurisdiction under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is no more res integra. While it is undoubtedly true that in exercising jurisdiction under section 482, the High Court does not function as a court of appeal or revision but at the same time, section 482 of Cr.P.C. envisages three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised. (i) To give effect to an order of the court (ii) To prevent abuse of the process of the court and (iii) To otherwise secure the ends of justice 9. Therefore the High Court has inherent power to act ex debito justitiae to do the real substantial justice for the administration of which it alone exists. The expression ‘or otherwise to secure’ means that the court has inherent power 6 apparent from express provisions of law which are necessary for proper discharge of functions and duties imposed upon it by law. Since in the instant case even after giving liberty to the court below to dispose of petitioner’s such prayer in accordance with law, he has turned down such prayer with extraneous considerations and with perverse apprehension, I find that this is fit case, where jurisdiction under section 482 is required to be invoked to secure the ends of justice. 10. In view of above the condition imposed in the bail order dated 05.08.2024 passed in special case no. 5 of 2024 which pertains to the condition ‘that the accused persons shall not enter into the house of the complainant until further order’ is hereby set aside. As a corollary the impugned order dated 05.02.2026 is also set aside. 11. CRR 1581 of 2026 thus stands disposed of. Urgent Xerox certified photocopies of this Judgment, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of the requisite formalities. (Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.)