THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.14127 OF 2025

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash the order, dated 28.07.2023, passed in Crl.M.P.No.2976 of 2023 in Crime No.51 of 2023 of SIT Police Station, CCS, Hyderabad (old Crime No.309 of 2022 of Nampally Police Station, Hyderabad), by the learned XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, and consequently, to release the passport of the petitioner.

2. Heard Sri Mohammed Amair Sohail, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial Court has erroneously dismissed the present petition filed by the petitioner, wherein the petitioner has prayed to grant interim custody of his passport to obtain visa to go to Umrah pilgrimage. He further submitted that the petitioner has deposited his passport before the Court in compliance of the conditions imposed while granting bail and that the petitioner is very much entitled to the custody of his passport. He further submitted that the passport cannot be impounded by any authority, but for the passport authority as laid down by the Honourable Apex Court in catena of judgments. He, therefore, prayed to set aside the impugned order, dated 28.07.2023, and grant interim custody of the passport of the petitioner.

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner herein is a habitual offender and the trial Court has rightly dismissed the petition. He, therefore, prayed to dismiss the Criminal Petition.

5. Perused the record.

6. The petitioner herein is facing allegations under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 120B of I.P.C. He is alleged to have created some fake documents and certificates and processed visas of students to study abroad. During pendency of the case, he was enlarged on bail, wherein one of the conditions imposed was to deposit his passport and he has complied with the same. Subsequently, he has filed the present petition seeking interim custody of his passport to facilitate him to get visa to go on Umrah pilgrimage. The trial Court, vide impugned order, dated

28.07.2023, dismissed the said petition.

7. In similar circumstances, a co-ordinate bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.4978 of 2025, dated 02.07.2025, held as under:

“15. As seen from the above, Section 436(1) Cr.P.C. stipulates that when a person/accused of a bailable offence is arrested or detained without any warrant and is prepared to furnish bail, he shall be released on bail. The language of the provision is mandatory and confers an absolute and indefeasible right to bail. The only discretion vested in the Court pertains to the amount of the bond or number of sureties; it does not extend to placing restrictions on personal liberty, such as confiscating or directing the deposit of a passport or imposing travel restrictions.

16. This statutory mandate was examined in depth by the Bombay High Court in Sultan Kamruddin Dharani v. Union of India (2008 SCC OnLine Bom 1347), wherein it was held that the Court cannot impose any conditions while enlarging a person on bail in a bailable offence which is not directly related to securing his appearance before the Court. In paragraph 19 of the judgment, the Court held that requiring the accused to surrender his passport or to seek permission before leaving India constitutes a restriction on liberty that defeats the absolute right to be set at liberty under Section 436(1) Cr.P.C. Such a condition is not a term as to bail, and hence ultra vires.

17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suresh Nanda v. C.B.I. ((2008) 3 SCC 674), laid down the principle that impounding of a passport is a function exclusively conferred on the Passport Authority under Section 10(3) of the Passports Act, 1967, and cannot be assumed or exercised by a criminal Court under Section 104 of Cr.P.C. The Court clarified the legal distinction between seizing and impounding