Surrender Of Passport Can't Be Imposed As Bail Condition In Bailable Offences: Telangana High Court
The Telangana High Court has held that in view of Section 436 of CrPC, a person booked for bailable offence cannot be asked to surrender their passport as a condition to grant them bail.
For reference, Section 436(1) of CrPC stipulates that a person accused of a bailable offence shall be enlarged on bail if he is arrested or detained without any warrant and is prepared to furnish bail.
Justice K. Sujana said:
“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.”
The court further said:
" Thus, the power to impound or retain a passport lies solely with the Passport Authority, and not with the criminal Courts, even if the passport is produced before them during proceedings. In the present case, it is not the case of the prosecution that any steps have been initiated under the Passports Act for impounding the passport of the petitioner. Instead, the trial Court imposed a blanket restriction through a bail condition, thereby exceeding its jurisdiction and infringing upon the personal liberty of the petitioner.”
The accused booked for bailable offences under Customs Act had moved the high court seeking quashing of a condition imposed by trial court directing him to deposit his passport, and to take permission from the Court before leaving the country.
The petitioner contended that the conditions mandating deposit of passport and taking Court's permission before leaving the country was without jurisdiction and violative of Article 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution and Section 436 of CrPC. The petitioner also argued that the power to direct conditional deposit of Passport vests solely with the Passport Authority and Trial Court lacked the jurisdiction to impose such a condition in the absence of any express legal provision.
On the contrary, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (Respondent) defended the bail conditions in light of the petitioner's foreign connections and international travel history, pending adjudication under Customs Act, the serious economic implications of the offence involved, and his potential risk of absconding. It was argued that the petitioner was apprehended red-handed while attempting to smuggle USD 81,250 at Rajiv Gandhi International Airport, Hyderabad.
On DRI's contention that passport was deposited voluntarily by the petitioner, the high court said that once the court issues direction requiring deposit of a document, “the voluntary nature of the act is extinguished, and the deposit assumes a compulsory and binding character.”
Allowing the plea, the high court quashed the trial court's order terming the conditions imposed on the accused as unsustainable.