The central legal point established in the judgment is that the seizure of a passport must adhere to the prescribed procedures under the law, and individuals have a fundamental right to hold their passport, which cannot be curtailed without due process.

JUDGMENT

1. The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:

"...to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of Respondents specifically Respondent No.3 and Respondent No.4 in not returning the Passport of the petitioner herein bearing No:P2952946 valid upto 22/6/2027 to the petitioner herein as contrary to Article 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and pass such other order or orders..." (In verbatim)

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent No.2 and learned Special Public Prosecutor for CB-CID appearing for respondents No.3 and 4.

3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is the resident of Virginia State, USA and a Non-Resident Indian and on a personal visit to Hyderabad, Telangana State, he came to meet his ailing mother. He is working as a software engineer by profession and he is also a member of mainstream opposition party in the State of Andhra Pradesh i.e., Telugu Desam Party (T.D.P) and he is also a vocal critic of administrative policies of the incumbent State Government.

(a) The petitioner through his social media platforms i.e., iThink Yash on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and You Tube, posted several videos by critically analyzing and at times, criticizing both the ruling party and the incumbent State Government. So, several cases were registered against him in the State of Andhra Pradesh due to his political activity of posting videos on social media networks.

(b) On 22/12/2023, when he arrived at the Shamshabad International Airport at Hyderabad, he was detained by the immigration authorities by informing him that a Look Out Circular (LOC) is pending against him and therefore they need to handover the petitioner to the Andhra Pradesh State Police, in relation to the crimes registered against him.

(c) On 23/12/2023, a team of CB-CID Police Officers took up the petitioner from the Shamshabad Police Station and took him to CID Regional Office, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh, in execution of LOC, in relation to a crime registered against him and on the same day, the respondent No.4 issued two notices under Sec. 41-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C.") and thereafter released him. The respondents No. 3 and 4 did not return the passport of the petitioner even after repeated persuasions and upon request, it was mentioned to the Advocate of the petitioner, by respondents No.3 and 4 that the passport of the petitioner would be released in a day or two.

(d) Thereafter, the petitioner applied for visa stamping and the date is scheduled as 26/12/2023. If this date is defaulted, then the petitioner has to apply for seeking another date and the slots for visa stamping for the next three months are unavailable. Thereby, the petitioner would be deprived of travelling abroad and consequential discharge of his official obligations. The passport has been seized in contravention of the existing laws in operation and such an exercise is unwarranted and is in violation of Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

4. The learned Senior Counsel representing the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that without following due procedure under law vide Ss. 91 and 102 of Cr.P.C, the passport has been illegally seized and has not been returned so far. He further submitted that a case in Crime No.2 of 2023, dtd. 20/2/2023, of Cyber Crimes Police Station, CID2, was registered under Ss. 153A, 505(2), 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "I.P.C."), but none of these provisions is attracted, since many times it was held that mere criticism of the policies of a Government would not amount to commission of any offence under these Sec. and that the petitioner has made all his statements in the public interest to awaken.

5. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the respondent