1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.

2. Perused the records and also the objection statement filed by the respondent No.2passport authorities herein.

3. This Court in Crl.P.No.9857/2016 has granted bail to the petitioner in respect of Cr.No.RC 26(A)/2016 with certain conditions. Condition No.2 is the condition restraining the petitioner from moving away from India, which reads as follows:

“(ii) He shall appear before the I.O. as and when called upon during further course of investigation and shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of the concerned Court”

4. Being aggrieved by the said condition, the petitioner approached this Court in Crl.P.No.3636/2017 and vide order dated 11.05.2017 the said condition No.2 has been relaxed as per para-6 of the order specifically stating that “the petitioner shall intimate the jurisdictional Court in writing about he leaving the territorial jurisdiction of the Court” and condition No.3 was also clarified that “the petitioner shall furnish the details to the respondent about his travel need not be necessarily by his physical appearance before the respondent authority.” However, it gives a meaning that if the petitioner wants to travel abroad he shall give the details of his travel to the I.O. In the meantime, it appears that, the Respondent No.1-CBI have intimated the Respondent No.2-Passport Authorities with regard to pendency of the above criminal case against the petitioner. Consequently, the passport authorities have issued a notice dated 08.02.2018 calling upon the petitioner as to why action should not be taken to impound his passport. It is also seen from another document dated 06.03.2018 issued by the Regional passport office, Bengaluru, stating that the passport of the petitioner has been kept in the safe custody. Therefore, it clearly goes to show that the passport has been kept in the safe custody by the Respondent No.2 and it appears that it has not been impounded by virtue of any specific order.

5. Under the above said circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court for a direction to the respondent No.2 for release of the said passport in order to enable the petitioner to travel abroad by intimating the trial Court as well as intimating his travel details to the I.O. in this particular case.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 strenuously submitted that though it is stated that, the passport is kept in the safe custody, the same has already been impounded. Therefore, the passport authorities need an order of the Court to release the said passport in favour of the petitioner.

7. Under the above said circumstances, when the Court has permitted the petitioner to travel abroad with certain conditions, it goes to show that the petitioner needs passport and also to travel abroad he may also require visa. The conditions which are imposed by this Court clearly shows that, after obtaining the passport if the petitioner wants to travel abroad, he shall intimate the trial Court so also give details of his travel to the I.O. When such conditions are imposed on the petitioner, it goes to show that the petitioner is required to use his passport and travel abroad whenever he needs. Under such circumstances, if the passport is impounded or kept in safe custody he cannot travel abroad and his right to liberty will be curtailed.

8. Under the above said circumstances, I find sufficient force in the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner. An order is required to be passed directing the passport authorities-Respondent No.2 to release the passport in favour of the petitioner forthwith.

9. It is submitted that the passport has already been renewed for upto 04.12.2026. Therefore, there is no question of renewal of the said passport in favour of the petitioner.

10. The learned counsel for the petitioner also sought for relaxation of the condition imposed by this Court in Crl.P.No.3636/2017 with regard to the appearance