@ Author
My observation from your post before us are;
1. Police (especially case IO) is now harassing you as said by you.
2. Your Lawyer is useless as said by you!
3. You yourself say you know the law - wow !
4. Lady’s side paid to IO overboard but you have not paid till date hence certain "double check" questions before us inspite of knowing the Law in queried matter.
Is it not so ?
Above besides the points before us, here is large piece of what factual law in subject matter is all about;
Re. Suresh Nanda .vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2008) 2 Supreme Court Cases(Crl) 121, wherein, their Lordships of the Hon’ble SC held in clear terms that the power of the police under S. 102 Cr.P.C., to seize a document could not be interpreted to include a power to impound the document. It was also held that the power of seizure contemplated under S. 102 Cr.P.C. was different from the power of the Court to impound a document under S. 104 Cr.P.C. The Honourable SC has held that though power has been conferred upon the court to impound a document under S. 104 Cr.P.C, the said power is not available in respect of a passport because impounding of the passport is governed by the provision of a special law, namely Passport Act, whereas the Code of Criminal Procedure is general law and hence the provisions of the special law will prevail over the general law. Their Lordships have also held in clear terms that though the police do have power to seize the passport and if they want to get the passport impounded after the seizure of the passport, they have to submit the passport to the Passport Authority with a requisition for impounding the same. Similar observation has been made in respect of the procedure to be followed by the Court. In either case, whether it be the Police or the Court, they cannot retain the passport and retention of the passport by the Court will amount to impounding of the document.
In the re. case, the Honourable SC also incidentally observed that it was open to the authorities to approach the Passport authority under S. 10 or the authorities under S. 10-A of the Act for impounding passport in accordance with law.
Also note The Passports Act is a special law while Cr.P.C is a general law. It is well settled that the special law prevails over the general law vide re. Sh. G. P. SINGH'S PRINCIPLES OF STATUTORY INTERPRETATION (9th Edn. P.133). This principle is expressed in the maxim “generalia specialibus non derogant”. Hence, impounding of a passport cannot be done by the IO / Court under S. 102 / S. 104 Cr.P.C though it can impound any other document or thing from you like your ATM card to gift to the lady if her lack of shopping J is the crux of the matter between you two now-a-days now that you are on 'regular bail'.
However, attend the PS on roll called day and there mark your "presence with time / date / signature" as mark of your co-operation before case IO and say in simple words to IO to approach concerned Authorities to "impound" your Passport if that is what you heard and or ask him to go and get from 'Prosecution Branch' a seizure memo issued. Bail cancellation cannot happen if "impounding" is the word used by IO.
