was an absolute and indefeasible right. While dealing
with the said contention, the Apex Court held that the
commitment of the Appellant to the custody was not by
reason of the fact that he is alleged to have committed
a bailable offence, but the reason for his commitment to
custody was a judicial order passed on the ground that
he has forfeited his bail. The Apex Court held that in
such a case the Appellant was not entitled to fall back
on his rights under section 496 of the old Code. In
that context, the Apex Court observed that indefeasible
right conferred under section 496 will not be available
to the Appellant. However, as stated earlier, in
paragraph 3 of the Judgment, the Apex Court upheld the
right to bail of an accused under section 496 of the old
Code, provided the accused is willing to give bail. On
plain reading of section 496 of the old Code and section
436(1) of the said Code, it is crystal clear that when a
person is charged with commission of a bailable offence,
he gets an absolute right of being enlarged on bail as
soon as he shows his willingness to give bail. In the
light of this absolute right created under section 436
of the said Code, it will be necessary to consider
whether any condition can be imposed by the learned
