IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Ram Lubhaya and others ....Petitioners V/s State of Punjab and another ....Respondents Date of decision: 19.12.2025 Date of Uploading : 22.12.2025 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Adhiraj Singh Thind, AAG Punjab.

Mr. Dheerja, Advocate for respondent No.2.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J.

1. The petition in hand has been preferred against the order dated 22.11.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, to the extent, that while granting anticipatory bail to the petitioners (herein), a condition has been imposed whereby the petitioners (herein) have been directed to deposit their passports before the trial Magistrate.

2. A criminal complaint under Sections 307/323/452/499/500/506/511/148/149 IPC was filed by respondent No.2 (herein) against the petitioners alongwith others stating therein that on 17.11.2018, the accused persons, acting in conspiracy, forcibly demolished the one Foundation (Thara) alongwith idols of Lordshiva and his family in broad day light thereby intentionally hurting the religious sentiments of the complainant and other locality members. The incident was videographed by the complainant and reported to the Police. However, the Police officials failed to register an FIR and instead pressurized the complainant to compromise the matter. Thereafter, the accused repeatedly abused, threatened and intimidated the complainant and his family including forcible entering into his house and physical assault, while claiming political influence. Despite repeated complaints and filing of an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and a suit for permanent injunction, no effective action was taken by the Police which necessitated the complainant to file the criminal complaint. Vide order dated 23.09.2019, the learned trial Magistrate directed for summoning of the accused (therein), including the petitioners (herein), for offences under Sections 323, 452, 500, 506, 511 and 149 of IPC. It is in this background, that the petitioners (herein) preferred an anticipatory bail plea before the Sessions Court, Jalandhar, which was granted by way of the impugned order but subject to condition(s), inter alia, of the petitioners (herein) depositing their passports before the learned trial Magistrate.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the limited challenge, to the impugned order, has been raised in the present petition vis.-a-vis. the imposition of the conditions of depositing of passports. Learned counsel has iterated that the petitioners have been falsely implicated into the criminal complaint in question. Learned counsel has further submitted that, even going by the summoning order passed by learned trial Magistrate, the petitioners (herein) have summoned only for offence(s) under Sections 323, 452, 500, 506, 511 and 149 of IPC. In these circumstances, the imposition of the condition requiring deposit of passports is wholly unwarranted, arbitrary and based on conjectures rather than any material on record. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioners are law abiding citizens with deep roots in society and there is no likelihood of their absconding or evading the process of law. Learned counsel has emphasized that the passports of the petitioners are essential documents, frequently required for the purposes of identification and for meeting professional and personal obligations and the impugned condition causes undue hardship and is disproportionate, onerous and, thus, liable to be set- aside. On the strength of these submissions, the grant of petition in hand is entreated for.

4. Upon being called upon, State of Punjab has filed reply dated 02.11.2025. A perusal of the said reply reflects that the prime stand of the State is that the petition in hand emanates from a private criminal complaint and no FIR/complaint etc. is pending adjudication before the Police. Raising submissio