The court upheld trial court conditions for passport renewal, emphasizing no compelling reasons were shown by the petitioner.

ORDER

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 (for short, ‘ BNSS ’) by the petitioner/accused, seeking relaxation of Condition No.2 of the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.588 of 2025 in C.C.No.376 of 2014, dated 28.08.2025, on the file of the VI Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad.

2. Heard Mr.D.Subramanyam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 28.08.2025 passed in Crl.M.P. No. 588 of 2025 in C.C. No. 376 of 2014. It is the case of the petitioner that he sought permission for renewal of his passport, and the trial Court granted the said relief with certain conditions. One of the conditions is that the petitioner shall submit

28.09.2025. The petitioner now seeks to set aside this condition.

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has objected, submitting that the FIR was registered on 03.08.2006 and the charge sheet was filed against the other accused in 2014. However, the petitioner herein was absconding, and his attendance could be secured only after a proclamation order was issued. It was only in 2018 that the charge sheet was filed against the petitioner. He, therefore, submitted that procuring the petitioner’s attendance in this case has been very difficult. Hence, he prayed that the trial Court's order need not be set aside.

5. Perused the record.

6. The trial Court has considered the submissions made by both sides and passed the impugned order. It has also taken into account the prayer of the petitioner and permitted the renewal of his passport, despite the record reflecting the averments submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. The petitioner’s right to renew the passport has been allowed, subject to certain conditions. One such condition is that he must produce the order. If the petitioner is allowed to travel abroad or leave the country, it could delay the case again, as it has already been very difficult to ensure his presence during the proceedings. In view of the same, he further submits that the petitioner has not stated any specific purpose for which he requires possession of the passport, unless there is an actual necessity to travel.

7. In the absence of such a necessity, there is no compelling reason for the petitioner to retain the passport. He has not mentioned any circumstances that justify keeping the passport with him. Unless such grounds are clearly stated, this Court cannot presume the existence of any such necessity. Therefore, the condition imposed by the trial Court directing the petitioner to produce the passport after renewal is appropriate and does not suffer from any infirmity. Accordingly, the same is upheld.

8. In view of the same, the Criminal Petition is liable to be and is accordingly dismissed.

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.