IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.18024 of 2025 Date: 21.01.2026 Between:

J.Shyam Babu, S/o. Late J.Hanumanth Rao ...Petitioner/accused AND The State of Telangana, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad ...Respondent

ORDER

This criminal petition is filed seeking to quash the conditions levied by the trial Court in Crl.M.P.No.1416 of 2025, dated 18.12.20255 for returning the deposited passport after getting acquittal in C.C.No.1334 of 2018 on the file of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge cum XIII Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ranga Reddy District at Rajendranagar. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.1416 of 2025 seeking the return of the deposited original passport bearing No.Y3806336. Although C.C. No. 1334 of 2018 ended in acquittal in favour of the petitioner, the trial Court did not pass any order with regard to the return of passport and the same is lying in the Court. Hence, the petitioner preferred Crl.M.P.No.1416 of 2025 seeking release of the passport in his favour. The trial Court disposed of the said petition by granting interim custody of the passport to the petitioner, subject to certain conditions. Aggrieved by the said conditions, the petitioner has preferred the present petition seeking to set aside the said order.

3. Heard Sri K.Shiva Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1-State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the main case ended in acquittal; however, custody of the petitioner’s own passport was not granted in his favour. Despite filing Crl.M.P.No.1416 of 2025, the trial Court imposed several conditions while ordering return of the passport. Therefore, he prayed to set aside the said conditions and direct the trial Court to release the passport without any conditions.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has not disputed the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

6. Perused the records. The C.C.No.1334 of 2018 ended in acquittal in favour of the petitioner herein. No order was passed regarding custody of the passport, and the same has been lying in the Court. The petitioner thereafter filed Crl.M.P.No.1416 of

2025 seeking return of the passport. In the said petition, the trial Court passed the following order:

“i) The original passport shall be returned to petitioner for interim custody under proper acknowledgment and identification and on substituting the same with self attested photocopies of total pages of passport before this Court.

ii) Petitioner shall execute personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- with single surety of Rs.10,000/- to the satisfaction of this Court.

iii) The petitioner shall deposit an amount of Rs.15,000/- by way of fixed deposit in the name of this Court towards caution deposit and in case of violation of above conditions this court is at liberty to forfeit the said amount and if no such situation arises before this Court, the petitioner is at liberty for return of the above said fixed deposit amount together with interest by filing proper petition before this Court after expiry of appeal period or in case of appeal being preferred after disposal of time accordingly.”

7. It is surprising to note the order of the trial Court returning the passport by way of interim custody on the above conditions. Once the matter has ended in acquittal, there is no purpose for the trial Court to retain the passport. It is pertinent to note that 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