Back
Permits Accused to Travel Abroad for Son's Wedding, Orders Furniture Donation to School
In an innovative order blending compassion with accountability, the allowed a 64-year-old woman facing abetment of suicide charges to temporarily reclaim her passport to attend her son's engagement and court marriage in the United States, while directing her to donate ₹2 lakh worth of furniture to a government school as for her delayed compliance with a bail condition.
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav passed the orders on , while disposing of a petition filed by Nina Prasad, a former Manager (Finance & Administration) at The petitioner challenged the trial court's refusal to temporarily release her passport, citing her son's impending wedding between .
The Case and the Catch
The case originates from FIR No. 97/2021, registered at in under , nearly seven months after a woman's suicide in . The prosecution alleged that the deceased, who was in a live-in relationship with the primary accused, had been subjected to sustained physical, mental, and financial exploitation. A suicide note referred to a person described as "Nina ma'am" – the petitioner – who had called the deceased two days before the incident to inform her that her services would be terminated. The petitioner maintained that the deceased was not her employee but worked for , a manpower-supply agency.
Granted
on
, the petitioner was directed to
"surrender her passport to this court/investigation officer forthwith"
under condition (e). She later sought
of the FIR, and on
, the High Court stayed further investigation qua her, observing that the ingredients of
were
"
not made out."
The stay was later vacated at her instance, and a
was eventually filed. She was formally arrested on
and released on existing bail.
The Lapse and the Apology
Despite the express condition, the petitioner did not surrender her passport for over 27 months. She explained the lapse as "inadvertence and oversight," noting that neither she nor the investigating officer pressed the matter upon her arrest. When her son's wedding plans materialised, she discovered the condition, promptly surrendered the passport on , and moved an application for its temporary release. The trial court dismissed the application on September 15, citing the unconditional direction to surrender "forthwith" and the unexplained delay.
Represented by , the petitioner tendered an apology and argued that her passport had not been used for any travel during the interim period. Relying on the 's decision in , she contended that the court could not direct surrender of a passport as is the exclusive domain of the under the . The state opposed the relief, maintaining that such a significant delay could not be treated as inconsequential.
Distinguishing from Deposit
Justice Kaurav upheld the validity of condition (e), drawing a careful distinction. The court noted that while
Suresh Nanda
prohibits "
" of a passport by courts or police, a direction to deposit a passport as an incident of
for bail stands on different footing and is a permissible condition that survives until varied.
"This Court is accordingly not persuaded that condition (e) of the order dated 31.05.2024 was without jurisdiction,"
the judge ruled.
However, the court found the case fit for limited relief given the petitioner's age, , permanent residence in Saket, the view that the abetment charge was not made out, and the fact that she had not actually travelled abroad during the default period. The judge also accepted the petitioner's apology, noting the trial court had taken the surrendered passport without issuing any .
as a
Justice Kaurav observed that a relaxation of this nature, founded on an admitted default,
"cannot be granted without some
."
Citing the precedent of
, which held that courts can impose as a condition under , the judge noted that such innovation is permissible when voluntarily offered and calibrated to the accused's capacity.
The petitioner volunteered a proportionate measure of accountability. The court directed her to: - Contact a government school in Delhi forthwith and request an indication of its requirement for essential furniture or items worth ₹2 lakh. - Place on record proof of having communicated with the school, along with its response, within seven days. - Upon taking these initial steps, the trial court must immediately release her passport, without awaiting completion of the donation. - Complete the actual supply of items within four weeks of her return to India and report compliance. - Surrender her passport again within seven days of returning.
A Blended Order of Justice and Reform
The order reflects a growing judicial willingness to blend personal liberty with social accountability. The High Court's nuanced approach – upholding the validity of passport deposit conditions under bail law while crafting a remedial order for non-compliance – offers a template for courts dealing with similar defaults. For the petitioner, it means she can celebrate her son's wedding without the cloud of pending proceedings, subject to fulfilling her community commitment upon return. The case also reinforces the principle that passport surrender conditions are not orders but legitimate bail conditions, distinguishable under the framework of the Passports Act.
The petition was disposed of with pending applications also disposed of.
