While imposing conditions for grant of bail, Trial Court has no power to direct any person to first apply for passport, obtain it, then surrender it: Bombay High Court

The unusual condition, which was imposed and later, was not modified, clearly shows that the Trial Court travelled beyond its powers and imposed such conditions, which was normally not required when granting bail.

Bombay High Court

Bombay High Court: In the present case, an unusual condition was imposed upon petitioner while releasing him on bail by the Additional Sessions Judge (‘the Trial Court’) and when an application was moved for modification of such an order, a further unusual condition had been put, which was challenged in the present proceedings. Bharat Deshpande, J., opined that while imposing the conditions for the grant of bail, the Trial Court did not have power to direct any person to first apply for a passport, obtain it, and then surrender it. The direction to deposit the passport could only be given if petitioner or accused possessed it.

Petitioner was an accused in a case registered with Agassaim Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 504, 506(ii) read with Section 34 of the Penal Code, 1860 (corresponding Sections 109, 352, 351(2) and 351(3) read with Section 3(5) of Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS)) and was arrested on 03-04-2024 and thereafter, had applied for grant of bail before the Trial Court. The Trial Court vide its order dated 23-04-2024 allowed the bail application and directed that petitioner be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs 50,000 with one surety in the like amount. One of the conditions that was imposed was that petitioner had to deposit the passport before the Court.

Counsel for petitioner submitted that though such a condition was imposed, it was pointed out to the Trial Court that petitioner did not possess any passport. Thereafter, petitioner filed an application for modification of the said order and more specifically for modification of condition related to depositing the passport.

The Court opined that in view of such affidavit filed for modification and the statement of the investigating agency that petitioner did not possess the passport and that he never applied for issuance of a passport, the Trial Court ought to have considered the application for relaxation of such condition and at the most, could have directed petitioner to “deposit the passport, if any”. However, the Trial Court observed in the impugned order dated 13-05-2024 that since the condition was imposed, petitioner must comply with it and should deposit the passport within a period of four months.

The Court opined that counsel for petitioner was justified in stating that by the impugned order, the Trial Court failed to consider the fact that the petitioner did not possess a passport and that he never applied for issuance of a passport and thus, there was no question of submitting the passport. The Court opined that directing petitioner to deposit passport within four months would mean that petitioner would first apply for the passport and on receipt of it, would deposit the same with the Court.

The Court opined that while imposing the condition for the grant of bail, the Trial Court did not have such power to direct any person to apply for a passport, obtain it, and then surrender it. The direction to deposit the passport could only be given if petitioner or accused possessed it. The Court further opined that the unusual condition, which was imposed in the first place and thereafter, failed to modify it, clearly showed that the Trial Court travelled beyond its powers and imposed such conditions, which was normally not required when granting bail.

The Court thus held that the impugned order was required to be quashed and set aside and the application filed for modification needs to be allowed to the extent it stated that petitioner had to deposit the passport, if any. The Court was informed that after suspension of the condition that petitioner was required to deposit its passport, he was already released on bail, thus the Court disposed of the petition and stated that the condition should be modified as stated above.

[Zakaulla Khazi v. State of Goa, 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 2100, decided on 09-07-2024]


Advocates who appeared in this case :

For the Petitioner: Advocate Vibhav R. Amonkar

For the Respondents: Public Prosecutor S.G. Bhobe

Buy Penal Code, 1860   HERE

penal code, 1860

Join the discussion

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *