Court Orders Release of Passports While Mandating Prior Permission for International Travel
In a significant judgment delivered by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, Justice Sumeet Goel has modified the bail conditions imposed on Ram Lubhaya and others, who were previously granted anticipatory bail by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar. The court has quashed the earlier requirement for the deposit of passports as a precondition for bail, thereby allowing the petitioners to reclaim their passports.
The case emanated from a criminal complaint filed by a respondent against the petitioners, alleging multiple offenses under the Indian Penal Code, including Sections 307, 323, 452, 499, 500, 506, 511, 148, and 149. The complaint accused the petitioners of forcibly demolishing a religious site, thereby hurting religious sentiments and engaging in acts of intimidation and assault.
Initially, the anticipatory bail granted by the Sessions Court in Jalandhar was contingent upon the petitioners depositing their passports with the trial Magistrate. The petitioners challenged this condition, arguing that it was unwarranted and caused undue hardship, especially as passports are essential documents for identification and professional purposes.
The High Court's judgment, delivered on December 19, 2025, emphasized the discretionary power of criminal courts to impose conditions on bail to prevent flight risk and obstruction of justice. However, the court noted that such discretion must be exercised judiciously, adhering to principles of proportionality and reasonableness. The judgment drew upon precedents set by the Supreme Court, which caution against imposing onerous or arbitrary conditions that could nullify the relief of bail.
Justice Goel highlighted the distinction between the court's power to require passport deposit as a bail condition and the statutory authority to impound passports, which rests solely with the Passport Authority under the Passports Act, 1967. He underscored that the condition for depositing passports should not be applied mechanically and must be based on a thorough assessment of the case's facts, particularly the risk of flight or obstruction of justice.
In this context, the court found that the petitioners had been compliant with the conditions of their anticipatory bail and had deep societal roots, negating the likelihood of absconding. Consequently, the court ordered the release of their passports while mandating that they seek prior permission from the trial Magistrate for any international travel.
This judgment is a crucial reminder of the importance of balancing the administration of justice with protecting individual liberties, ensuring that bail conditions do not become punitive measures against those presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Bottom Line:
Anticipatory bail - Condition for deposit of passport - Court possesses discretionary power to impose the condition of depositing a passport as a precondition for bail; however, such discretion should not be exercised mechanically and must adhere to the principles of proportionality and reasonableness.
Statutory provision(s): Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Sections 480, 482, 483; Passports Act, 1967 Section 10(3); Constitution of India Article 21; The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Sections 437, 438, 439
Ram Lubhaya v. State of Punjab, (Punjab And Haryana) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2825005
