The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that authorities cannot "routinely or mechanically" require the deposit of passports as a bail condition. The court emphasized that such conditions should not unduly curtail personal liberty and must be supported by specific evidence indicating a genuine flight risk.
Justice Sumeet Goel, presiding over the case, stated that ordering the deposit of a passport as a precondition for bail is only justifiable when objective factors point to a clear and imminent threat to the administration of justice. It should not be used as a punitive measure against an accused who is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The ruling came while Justice Goel was deciding on a criminal revision petition filed by Ram Lubhaya and others, who were challenging a November 22, 2019, order from a Jalandhar sessions judge.
The petitioners in the case had been granted anticipatory bail in a criminal case involving charges of causing hurt and wrongful confinement. However, the Jalandhar sessions court directed them to deposit their passports. The petitioners argued that the passport deposit condition was arbitrary, excessive, and imposed without justification, as they were summoned for comparatively less severe offenses and there was no evidence to suggest they were a flight risk. They contended that passports are essential identity and travel documents, and their seizure caused undue hardship.
The High Court set aside the condition requiring the petitioners to deposit their passports, deeming it disproportionate and unsupported by facts. Justice Goel emphasized the importance of balancing individual freedom with the interests of justice. He stated that restrictions on freedom must be "narrowly confined to what is necessary, proportionate to the object sought to be achieved, and clearly anchored in law".
The court also drew a distinction between a judicial direction to deposit a passport and the statutory power to impound a passport under the Passport Act, 1967. Justice Goel clarified that a court's power to impose a passport deposit condition stems from its inherent and statutory discretion under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita when granting bail. However, this regulatory measure is different from the power to impound a passport, which is solely vested in the designated Passport Authority.
Furthermore, the court noted that a passport is not merely a travel document but also serves as proof of nationality and identity. Therefore, directing its deposit should only occur when objective factors indicate a clear and imminent threat to the administration of justice, and it cannot be used as a punitive measure against an undertrial. The court also stated that it is not desirable to lay down any "straitjacket formulation" in this regard, emphasizing that each case should be decided based on its own factual context and in accordance with the principles of justice, equity, and good conscience.
