a. These judgments may help people looking for passport release.
Waiver of Bail Condition Impounding Petitioner’s Passport
According to Section 10(3) of the Passports Act, 1967 only the passport authority is empowered to impound the passport. The following cases are cited in favor of argument.
i) Supreme Court Judgment in “SURESH NANDA v/s CBI, 24-Jan-2008”
“In our opinion, even the Court cannot impound a passport. Though, no doubt, Section 104 Cr.P.C. states that the Court may, if it thinks fit, impound any document or thing produced before it, in our opinion, this provision will only enable the Court to impound any document or thing other than a passport. This is because impounding a passport is provided for in Section 10(3) of the Passports Act. The Passports Act is a special law while the Cr.P.C. is a general law. It is well settled that the special law prevails over the general law vide G.P. Singh's Principles of Statutory Interpretation (9th Edition pg. 133). This principle is expressed in the maxim Generalia specialibus non derogant. Hence, impounding of a passport cannot be done by the Court under Section 104 Cr.P.C. though it can impound any other document or thing.”
ii) Chhattisgarh High Court Judgment in “PUSHPAL SWARNKAR v/s STATE of CHHATTISGARH, 03-Dec-2008”
“According to Section 10(3) of the Passports Act, 1967 only the passport authority is empowered to impound the passport. In this case, the Additional Sessions Judge has imposed the condition to deposit the passport and visa for which he is not empowered. The Court below has committed illegality and exceeded the jurisdiction vested on it. Therefore, the order impugned requires to be modified.”
iii) Kolkata High Court Judgment in “AMITAVA BHOWMIK v/s UNION of INDIA & ORS, 11-Apr-2012”
“Here, the petitioner is an accused in proceedings initiated on the basis of a complaint lodged by his wife. It is not the case of the passport authority that the petitioner is involved in any activity that exposes the country to security risk.”
“The passport authority is directed to restore passport facilities in favor of the petitioner subject to such terms and conditions that it may be consider necessary to impose in the interest of the sovereignty of the country...”
b. Waiver of Bail Condition of Taking Court’s Permission to Travel Abroad
i) Delhi High Court Judgment in “NANDINI BHATNAGAR v/s STATE GOVT. of NCT of DELHI, 14-Dec-2012 (Crl.M.C. 4231/2012)”
“It is settled law that right to travel is a facet of personal liberty and is protected by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. (See Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India & Anr., (1978) 1 SCC 248 and Satwant Sing Sawhney Vs. D. Ramarathnam, Assistant Passport Officer, Government of India, New Delhi & Ors., AIR 1976 SC 1836)…”
“This Court also takes judicial notice of the fact that the condition of obtaining prior permission before leaving the boundary of Delhi is a cumbersome one as the permission takes time and causes hardship to the petitioner. This Court is of the view that the impugned condition would certainly restricts the accused's fundamental right to travel”
“Undoubtedly, the accused's right to travel can be curtailed by a reasonable, transparent and fair procedure, but in the opinion of this Court such a restriction should be rarely imposed by the trial court while granting bail and that too, for cogent reasons.”
“Consequently, present petition is allowed and the condition imposed by the impugned order dated 06th October, 2012 restraining the petitioner from leaving the boundary of the NCT of Delhi as well as the NCR and the Country without the prior permission of the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate is set aside.”
ii) Delhi High Court Judgment in “HARPREET SINGH v/s STATE GOVT. of NCT of DELHI, 16-Aug-2004”
“On filing of the above undertakings, before the learned Trial Court condition imposed in the bail order dated 9.4.2003, directing that the petitioner, shall not leave country, without prior permission of the Court, shall stand waived. The ratio of the decisions cited by the learned Counsel for the complainant are not applicable to the facts at hand.”
