The right to travel abroad is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. While violating bail conditions is a serious breach of the rule of law, impounding a passport may violate personal liberty unless absolutely necessary.

Order

1. By way of filing the instant criminal misc. petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 29.07.2024 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.2, Ajmer (for short “the Trial Court”) in Criminal Case No.26/2018 by which a direction has been issued to the Chief Passport Officer, Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi and Regional Passport Officer, Jaipur to impound the passport of the petitioner.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is facing trial for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 406 & 120-B IPC. Learned counsel submits that at the time of registration of the FIR, the petitioner was having apprehension that he may be arrested by the Investigating Agency, hence, under these circumstances, he submitted an anticipatory bail application

No.16436/2017 before this Court and the same was allowed on 29.11.2017 with the condition that the petitioner would not leave the country without seeking prior permission of the Court. Learned counsel submits that since the proceedings pending before the Trial Court could not proceed for a considerable time and some dispute arose between the family members of the petitioner, i.e., between his sons, at the United States, therefore, in order to resolve the said dispute of the family, the petitioner travelled to the United States and behind his back, the order impugned has been passed on 29.07.2024 and a direction has been issued to impound his passport. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner appeared and surrendered before the Trial Court on 13.08.2024 and applied for getting bail under Section 437 Cr.P.C. However, the said application was rejected by the Trial Court on 13.08.2024. Thereafter, he submitted bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. before the Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Ajmer and the same was allowed on 17.08.2024 and a condition was put that the petitioner will not travel abroad without seeking prior permission of the Court. Learned counsel submits that now the petitioner is not in a position to get his passport renewed, in terms of the order dated 29.07.2024 passed by the Trial Court. Learned counsel submits that learned Trial Court has no power/jurisdiction to pass such an order. This power lies only with the Passport Authority, hence, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law and the same is liable to be quashed.

3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that conditional anticipatory bail was granted to the petitioner by this Court vide

order dated 29.11.2017 and a clear and specific condition was imposed on him that he will not leave the country without seeking prior permission of the Court. However, violating the aforesaid condition, the petitioner has travelled abroad, i.e., to the United States without seeking prior permission of the Court. Hence, the Trial Court has not committed any error in passing the order impugned, which warrants any interference of this Court and the instant misc. petition is liable to be rejected.

4. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on the record.

5. Perusal of the record indicates that when anticipatory bail application of the petitioner was allowed, a clear and specific condition was imposed on him that he will not travel abroad without seeking prior permission of the Court. But inspite of the above, the petitioner has trave