2025 (3) TMI 420 - HC - Customs

Seeking deletion of bail condition - retention of the applicant s passport - HELD THAT - On perusing the record there is no reason as to why the present Application needs to be adjourned to hear the DRI since the DRI has already filed its Affidavit in Criminal Bail Application No.434 of 2024 and their objections have been duly considered by the Court. There can be no other different objections. Prima facie it is seen that passport is not an incriminating document in the prosecution case and hence its seizure permanently prima facie would be violative of the provisions of Sections 10(3)(e) and 10-A of the Passports Act 1967 and it would indirectly amount to impounding of the passport - it will be unjust to deny the Applicant the relief prayed for in the present Application considering his deep roots in the society and he has no criminal antecedents either requiring the Applicant to constantly approach the DRI and the concerned appropriate Court for seeking permission and copy of the passport whenever he has to travel abroad is prima facie on the face of record onerous due to the aforesaid reasons. It is therefore directed that condition No.3 in bail order dated 21.05.2021 appended at Exhibit A page No.27 of the present Application stands deleted. Rest of the order dated 21.05.2021 is retained. Resultanlty the impugned order dated 04.10.2024 is quashed and set aside. Conclusion - The bail condition requiring the retention of the applicant s passport was unjust and violative of the Passports Act. Criminal Application is allowed.

Summary

The Bombay High Court considered an application seeking the deletion of a bail condition that required the applicants not to leave India without prior permission and allowed the Department of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) to retain their passports until further orders. The court noted that the condition was onerous and examined a similar order passed in a related case. The court found that the permanent seizure of passports would violate the Passports Act, 1967, and considered the applicant's business profile and antecedents, stating that repeatedly depositing the passport after each travel itinerary amounted to indirect retention by the court. The court referred to relevant legal precedents and principles, including the special nature of the Passports Act overriding general laws like the Cr.P.C. The court concluded that the condition deserved interference and directed the deletion of the onerous bail condition, allowing the return of the applicant's passport within one week. The court also imposed requirements for the applicant to provide travel details in advance to the DRI for future travels. The criminal application was allowed and disposed of by the court.The key issues considered in this judgment were the onerous bail condition regarding the retention of passports by the DRI, the applicability of the Passports Act, and the fairness of requiring the applicant to seek permission for travel abroad repeatedly. The court analyzed the legal framework of the Passports Act, relevant precedents, and the specific circumstances of the case to reach its decision. The court emphasized the special nature of the Passports Act and the need to balance individual rights with the interests of law enforcement agencies. The court's reasoning focused on the potential violation of the Passports Act, the impact on the applicant's freedom of movement, and the principles of fairness and justice. The court's decision to delete the onerous bail condition and allow the return of the passport was based on these considerations, ensuring a fair balance between the rights of the applicant and the concerns of the investigating authority.The significant holdings of the judgment include the court's determination that the permanent seizure of passports would violate the Passports Act, the recognition of the applicant's right to travel for business purposes, and the directive to delete the onerous bail condition. The court established the principle that the Passports Act prevails over general laws like the Cr.P.C. in matters concerning the retention of passports. The final determination on the issue was the deletion of the bail condition and the return of the applicant's passport within one week, with additional requirements for future travel notifications to the DRI. The court's decision upheld the applicant's rights while addressing the concerns of the investigating authority, ensuring a fair and balanced outcome in the case.