The main legal point established is that surrendering passports as a bail condition does not amount to impounding, and the court should consider the social value of the freedom to go abroad and the health conditions of the individuals.

ORDER :

Petitioners Ravi Bala (in CRMMO No.273 of 2014) and Gourish Chadha (in CRMMO No.323 of 2015) have filed Cr.MP No.2167 of 2022 (by Petitioner Ravi Bala) and Cr.MP No.2168 of 2022 (by Petitioner Gourish Chadha), for release of the Passport of Ravi Bala with permission to go to the United States of America (USA) and for release of the passport of Gourish Chadha to process his application to go to USA. Whereas, Cr.MP No.2487 of 2022 (by Petitioner Ravi Bala) and Cr.MP No.2488 of 2022 (by Petitioner Gourish Chadha) have been filed for amendment of the condition, with prayer to delete the condition directing to deposit the Passports, imposed upon the petitioners at the time of granting them bail by this High Court on 10.3.2015 in Cr.MP(M) No.73 of 2015, filed by petitioner Ravi Bala and Cr.MP(M) No.113 of 2015, filed by petitioner Gourish Chadha.

2. Passports of petitioners have been deposited with the SHO of the concerned Police Station, in compliance of condition imposed upon the petitioners, vide order dated 10.3.2015, passed in Cr.MP(M) No.73 of 2015 and Cr.MP(M) No.113 of 2015.

3. Prayer for modification of condition with respect to Passports has been made, on the basis of judgment of the Supreme Court in Suresh Nanda v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2008) 3 SCC 674, wherein it has been held as under:

“18. In our opinion, even the Court cannot impound a passport. Though, no doubt, Section 104 Cr.P.C. states that the Court may, if it thinks fit, impound any document or thing produced before it, in our opinion, this provision will only enable the Court to impound any document or thing other than a passport. This is because impounding a “passport” is provided for in Section 10(3) of the Passports Act. The Passports Act is a special law while the Cr.P.C. is a general law. It is well settled that the special law prevails over the general law vide G.P. Singh's Principles of Statutory Interpretation (9th Edn., p.133). This principle is expressed in the maxim generalia specialibus non derogant. Hence, impounding of a passport cannot be done by the Court under Section 104 Cr.P.C. though it can impound any other document or thing.”

4. Perusal of copy of order dated 10.3.2015, passed in Cr.MP(M) No.73 of 2015 and Cr.MP(M) No.113 of 2015, placed on record, clearly depicts that Passports of the petitioners have neither been impounded nor have been ordered to be impounded by the Court, but a condition has been imposed, at the time of granting bail, to deposit the Passports with SHO of the Police Station concerned, with another condition that the petitioners shall not leave India without permission of the Court.

5. In present case, Court has not ordered for seizure or impounding of the Passports but has imposed condition of depositing the Passports with the SHO of the Police Station concerned, which amounts to surrendering the Passports and it, at no stretch of imagination, can be said impounding or seizure of the Passports.

6. In Shyam Sahni v. Arjun Prakash and others, (2020) 16 SCC 788, where a condition, directing to surrender Passport, imposed by learned Single Judge and interfered by Division Bench, was subject matter of consideration, the Supreme Court upheld the condition directing to surrender the Passport by observing as under:

“27. Since repeated undertakings were filed and the same were not complied with, learned Single Judge directed respondent No.1 to surrender his passport. The said order was passed to ensure the presence of the first respondent and compliance of the order of the Court. It cannot be said that the learned Single Judge exceeded the jurisdiction or committed an error in ordering surrender of the passport. In order to ensure the presence of the parties in the contempt proceedings, the Court is empowered to pass appropriate orders including the surrender of passport. While dealing with child custody matter, in David Jude vs. Hannah Grace Jude, (2003) 10 SCC 767, the Supreme Court directed Union of India to canc