A case was registered against the petitioner for the offence under Sections 120(b) r/w. 420, 468, 471 IPC, in which he was granted anticipatory bail by the learned Sessions Judge, Chennai on 05.11.2016 in Crl.M.P.No.16123 of 2016.

2. Heard the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI Cases for the respondent.

3. The petitioner is aggrieved against the condition made therein whereby he was directed to surrender his passport before the Court and was directed, not to leave the country without prior permission of the Court.

4. Mr. Shanmuga Sundaram, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is the petitioner's fundamental right to travel abroad and he cannot be curtailed by an order directing to surrender the passport. The learned senior counsel stated that the petitioner has produced substantial security before the Sessions court and that being a business man, he requires to travel frequently for his business purposes.

5. The legal question as to whether the police are empowered to retain the passport of an accused under the provisions of Cr.P.C., has come time and again before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and various other Courts and it has been held that the Courts exercising its power under the Cr.P.C., cannot impound the passport under the guise of seizure.

6. In support of his contention, the learned Senior counsel cited the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Suresh Nanda Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in 2008 (3) SCC 674, wherein in para 15 to 18 reads as follows:

“15. It may be mentioned that there is a difference between seizing of a document and impounding a document. A seizure is made at a particular moment when a person or authority takes into his possession some property which was earlier not in his possession. Thus, seizure is done at a particular moment of time. However, if after seizing of a property or document the said property or document is retained for some period of time, then such retention amounts to impounding of the property/or document. In the Law Lexicon by P. Ramanatha Aiyar (2nd Edition), the word impound has been defined to mean to take possession of a document or thing for being held in custody in accordance with law. Thus, the word impounding really means retention of possession of a good or a document which has been seized.

16. Hence, while the police may have power to seize a passport under Section 102 Cr.P.C. if it is permissible within the authority given under Section 102 of Cr.P.C., it does not have power to retain or impound the same, because that can only be done by the passport authority under Section 10(3) of the Passports Act. Hence, if the police seizes a passport (which it has power to do under Section 102 Cr.P.C.), thereafter the police must send it along with a letter to the passport authority clearly stating that the seized passport deserves to be impounded for one of the reasons mentioned in Section 10(3) of the Act. It is thereafter the passport authority to decide whether to impound the passport or not. Since impounding of a passport has civil consequences, the passport authority must give an opportunity of hearing to the person concerned before impounding his passport. It is well settled that any order which has civil consequences must be passed after giving opportunity of hearing to a party vide State of Orissa Vs. Binapani Dei [Air 1967 SC 1269].

17. In the present case, neither the passport authority passed any order of impounding nor was any opportunity of hearing given to the appellant by the passport authority for impounding the document. It was only the CBI authority which has retained possession of the passport (which in substance amounts to impounding it) from October, 2006. In our opinion, this was clearly illegal. Under Section 10A of the Act retention by the Central Government can only be for four weeks. Thereafter it can only be retained by an order of the