The court ruled that an investigation officer cannot seize an accused's passport without a court order, affirming the right to travel.

ORDER

The petitioner is the accused in C.C No.

543/2025 on the file of the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram, (‘Trial Court’ for brevity) which originated from Crime No.02/2018 registered by the Thiruvananthapuram City Cyber Police Station, alleging the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 420 , 465, 468, and 471 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 43 r/w Section 66 and 66(c) of the Information Technology Act .

2. The petitioner has stated in the Criminal Miscellaneous Case that he is totally innocent of the allegations levelled against him. There is no material to substantiate his culpability in the crime. He was arrested on 05.08.2018 at Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi. He was enlarged on bail by Annexure 2 order. He has been scrupulously complying with the conditions in the said order. The investigation in the case is complete, and the final report has been filed. However, the Investigating Officer has illegally retained the petitioner’s passport and mobile phone without the orders of the Court. The petitioner's right to travel abroad has been curtailed, which is an infringement of his fundamental right guaranteed under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India . In the above circumstances, the petitioner filed an application before the Trial Court for the release of his passport. However, by Annexure 5 order, the Trial Court has dismissed the application on the ground that the petitioner is a habitual offender and is involved in numerous cases across the country. Annexure A5 order is ex facie illegal and erroneous. The Trial Court has failed to comprehend that there is no restriction imposed by any Court restricting the petitioner’s right to travel abroad. Therefore, the Annexure A5 order may be set aside.

3. The investigation officer has filed a report, inter alia, stating that the petitioner is involved in twenty-four crimes registered by the various police stations in the state as well as by Mangaluru City.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. The petitioner was enlarged on bail in the present crime by Annexure 2 order, subject to the condition that he has to execute a bond for Rs. 50,000 with two solvent sureties for a like sum, appear before the investigation officer on all Saturdays till the filing of the final report and cooperate with the investigation.

6. Undisputedly, there is no order passed by any Court ordering the petitioner’s passport to be surrendered. It is apparent that the investigation officer has seized the petitioner’s passport. Under what provision he has seized the passport, without the order of the Court, is not discernible. Whether an accused’s passport can be seized by an investigation officer without orders of the Court is a pertinent question, which the Trial Court has not considered. Hence, I am of the definite view that the Trial Court is to be directed to reconsider the application filed by the petitioner seeking for the return of his passport. I am satisfied that this is a fit case to exercise the inherent powers of this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS.

In the aforesaid circumstances, I set aside the Annexure 5 order and direct the learned magistrate to re-consider C.M.P. No. 3248/2025, in accordance with law, after affording the petitioner and the Investigating Officer an opportunity of being heard, untrammelled by any observation made in this order. It is also made clear that this Court has not expressed anything on the right of the petitioner to travel abroad.

Sd/-