Passport Deposit Bail Condition Cannot Be Imposed Routinely As Passport Serves Identification Too; Punjab & Haryana High Court
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana Single Bench of Justice Sumeet Goel allowed a petition challenging a bail condition requiring the accused to deposit their passports with the trial court in a private complaint alleging demolition of a religious platform with idols and subsequent threats and physical assault on the complainant’s family. The Bench quashed the passport-deposit direction, stating that courts should not insist on such deposits as a routine bail term and observing that “the passport, is not only required as a travel document, but is also required for other purposes especially as means of identification.” It, however, directed that the accused must seek prior permission from the trial Magistrate before travelling abroad, while the anticipatory bail otherwise continued on the remaining terms.
The case arose from a petition challenging a condition imposed while granting anticipatory bail by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar. The petitioners were accused in a private criminal complaint alleging offences under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code, including allegations of forcible demolition of a religious structure, physical assault, criminal intimidation, and acts claimed to have hurt religious sentiments.
The complainant alleged that the incident occurred in broad daylight and was video graphed, but no FIR was registered despite complaints to the police, leading to the filing of a private complaint. The Magistrate subsequently summoned the accused for certain offences. When the petitioners sought anticipatory bail, the Sessions Court granted relief but imposed a condition requiring them to deposit their passports before the trial court.
The petition before the High Court was limited to challenging this specific condition. The petitioners contended that the summoning order itself was for lesser offences, that there was no material suggesting a risk of absconding, and that the passport-deposit condition was arbitrary and disproportionate. The State opposed the petition, while counsel appointed for the complainant supported the condition as necessary to secure the ends of justice.
The Court examined the scope of judicial discretion while imposing conditions of bail and framed the central issue as “whether a Court while granting bail, whether regular bail in non-bailable offence(s) or anticipatory bail, can impose a condition upon the bail-applicant/accused to deposit his/her passport with the Court.”
After referring to statutory provisions under the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, the Court noted that “the object of imposing conditions of bail is to ensure that the accused does not interfere or obstruct the investigation, remains available for the investigation and trial, and does not tamper with evidence.”
Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Court recorded that “while exercising discretion to release an accused under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the High Court or the Court of Session would not be justified in imposing freakish conditions,” and that conditions “cannot be arbitrary, fanciful, harsh, or excessive so as to frustrate the very object of grant of bail.”
The Court also referred to the Passports Act, 1967, and observed that “impounding of a passport is governed by a special statute and ordinarily does not fall within the domain of criminal courts exercising powers under the Code.” It further stated that “a broader meaning cannot be assigned to the expression ‘interest of justice’ so as to justify conditions which are not necessary for securing the presence of the accused or the fair conduct of trial.”
On facts, the Court noted that the prosecution originated from a private complaint, that the petitioners had already been summoned for limited offences, and that there was no material on record to show that they posed a flight risk. It recorded that “the mere apprehension, without supporting material, cannot justify an onerous condition curtailing personal liberty.”
The Court allowed the petition to the limited extent of the challenge raised. It directed that “the condition imposed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, requiring the petitioners to deposit their passports before the trial Magistrate, is set aside.”
“The petitioners (herein) are mandated to seek prior permission of the trial Magistrate before leaving the country. Nothing said hereinabove shall be deemed to be an expression of opinion upon the merits of the case.” Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Adhiraj Singh Thind, AAG, Punjab; Mr. Dheerja, Advocate
Case Title: Ram Lubhaya and Others v. State of Punjab and Another
Neutral Citation: 2025: PHHC:179471
Case Number: CRR-134-2020
Bench: Justice Sumeet Goel
