Police Cannot Indefinitely Retain Passports: Kerala High Court

In a significant ruling addressing the limitations of police powers regarding seized travel documents, the High Court of Kerala has clarified that law enforcement agencies lack the authority to indefinitely retain passports. Justice V.G. Arun, presiding over the case of Abdul Gafoor vs. State of Kerala , emphasized that while the police may seize a passport as evidence during an investigation, the legal power to "impound" such a document rests exclusively with the designated passport authorities under the Passports Act , 1967.

Background of the Dispute

The petitioner, Abdul Gafoor, was accused under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita , 2023, and the Passports Act , 1967, following allegations that he attempted to travel from Karipur Airport to Saudi Arabia using a passport obtained by allegedly concealing a previous one. During the investigation, the Karipur police seized his passport and produced it before the jurisdictional Magistrate.

When the Magistrate rejected the petitioner's request for the release of his passport, Gafoor moved the High Court. His counsel argued that the passport contained legitimate, corrected details—an argument countered by the prosecution, which maintained that the document contained incorrect information and was a vital piece of evidence that could not be released.

A Question of Authority: Seizure vs. Impounding

The legal pivot of the case hinged on the distinction between seizure and impounding . Relying on the Supreme Court's landmark judgment in * Suresh Nanda v. CBI *, the court noted that the police possess the power to seize a passport under Section 102(1) of the Cr.P.C. for investigation purposes, but lack the statutory authority to impound it.

The High Court observed that holding a passport indefinitely without recourse to the Passport Act constitutes "deemed impounding," which exceeds the scope of police powers.

Key Observations

The judgment highlighted the necessity of adhering to procedural law to protect individual rights while balancing investigative needs:

• On the limits of police power: "The power to impound the Passport under Section 10 (3) of the Passports Act is vested exclusively with the authorities under the Act."
• On the consequence of retention: "Being so, indefinite retention of the Passport would amount to deemed impounding."
• On the required procedure: "The jurisdictional Magistrate shall release the Passport to the custody of the Regional Passport Officer, Kozhikode on appropriate acknowledgment."

The Court's Directive

Justice V.G. Arun ordered a pragmatic resolution to the deadlock. Rather than keeping the passport trapped in judicial custody, the High Court directed the Magistrate to forward the document to the Regional Passport Officer (RPO) in Kozhikode.

The RPO is now tasked with conducting a formal inquiry under Section 10 (3) of the Passports Act . Crucially, the court noted that the petitioner’s travel visa is set to expire on November 7, 2025, and directed the RPO to conclude the inquiry as "expeditiously as possible."

This decision reinforces the principle that procedural safeguards under specialized statutes like the Passports Act must be respected, preventing law enforcement from engaging in prolonged administrative bottlenecks that could otherwise have been resolved through the appropriate regulatory channels. If the RPO finds no reason to impound the document, the passport will be returned to the court, paving the way for the petitioner to request its release.