The right to travel abroad is subject to reasonable restrictions, especially for individuals accused of grave crimes, and specific details and genuine intent are required when seeking the return of a passport for travel abroad.

1. The petitioner herein is arrayed as 2nd accused in Crime No.RCMA No.1/2016 A 0051 on the file of the respondent and pending before XI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Court for CBI Cases relating to Banks and Financial Institutions.

2. This petitioner was initially shown as accused in Cr.No. RCMA No.1/2016 A 0040 registered by the respondent on 02.01.2017 for the alleged offences under Sections 120-B r/w 409 and 420 IPC and under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He was arrested by the respondent and later, enlarged on bail on 17.03.2017 on condition that he should appear before the respondent daily at 10.30 a.m., and surrender his passport to the custody of the Court, where the case is pending for trial.

3. While so, on 20.03.2017 in connection with the case booked by the Enforcement Directorate under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, he was arrested and remanded to judicial custody in connection with Crime No.RCMA No.1/2016 A 0051. Later, he was released on 12.05.2017 on condition that he should stay at Delhi and report before the Enforcement Directorate daily. The said condition was relaxed/modified subsequently in Crl.M.P.No.1859 of 2017 by the trial Court that he should report before the respondent once in 15 days. The said condition was further relaxed in Crl.M.P.No.3346 of 2017 that he should report before the respondent on first Monday of every month. Accordingly, he complied with the condition without any default.

4. When he sought for relaxation of the condition in toto, the trial Court has rejected his request. He has also sought for return of his passport, which he surrendered before the trial Court is one of the conditions imposed while granting bail. The reason for return of passport is for him travel abroad to make arrangements for higher studies of his daughter by name Ms.Latika, who is currently pursuing her XII Standard in Bhartiya Vidya Bhavan, Kilpauk, Chennai to get medical seat abroad. The trial Court has not considered his petition favourably. Hence, the above said revision petitions have been filed to set aside the orders of the trial Court passed in Crl.M.P.Nos.3960 of 2017 and 3961 of 2017.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that travelling abroad is a fundamental right, which is protected under the Constitution. By withholding his passport the fundamental right of the petitioner is curtailed. The petitioner being a reputed gentleman in the society having root in Chennai will not flee away from justice or make himself scare or unavailable before the Hon'ble Court for the purpose of investigation. Therefore the order of the trial Court declining to return the passport has to be reviewed.

6. In support of his submission, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would also rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Suresh Nanda v. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2008) 3 SCC 674.

7. Per contra, the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the CBI Cases would submit that the petition for return of passport is filed without furnishing any details about the proposed travel abroad by the petitioner/accused. The trial Court has rightly dismissed the petition on the ground that the petition is bereft of details besides the passport is also not seized by the police during the investigation, but it has been surrendered by the accused pursuant to the order passed by the Court while granting bail. Therefore, returning the passport surrendered pursuant to the bail condition does not arise.

8. Further, the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for CBI Cases would also submit that the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cited supra by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner is factually not applicable to the case in hand, since the said judgment is in respect of seizing and impounding of passport by the investigating agency. Whereas, in