In a significant ruling safeguarding personal liberty, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has decreed that criminal courts cannot impose the condition of depositing one's passport as a routine or automatic prerequisite for granting bail. The court emphasized that such a condition must be backed by concrete evidence indicating a genuine risk of the accused fleeing justice.
Judicial Discretion Must Be Based on Facts, Not Routine
The bench of Justice Sumeet Goel pronounced this judgment while adjudicating a criminal revision petition filed by Ram Lubhaya and others. The petitioners had challenged a November 22, 2019 order from the Additional Sessions Judge in Jalandhar. While granting them anticipatory bail in a case involving charges of causing hurt and wrongful confinement, the sessions court had directed them to surrender their passports to the trial magistrate.
The High Court firmly rejected this mechanical approach. Justice Goel stated that a passport is not just a travel document but a crucial proof of identity and nationality. Therefore, ordering its deposit as a bail condition is justifiable only when objective factors point to a clear and imminent threat to the judicial process. The court held that this power must not be used as a punitive tool against an undertrial, who enjoys the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.
HC Sets Aside Passport Condition for Jalandhar Accused
In their plea before the High Court, the petitioners argued that they were facing charges for relatively less severe offences. They contended there was no material on record to suggest they were a flight risk. They described the condition as arbitrary, excessive, and causing undue hardship by seizing an essential identity document.
After hearing the arguments, the High Court agreed. It set aside the condition requiring the petitioners to deposit their passports, ruling it was unsupported by the factual matrix of the case. The court underscored that the necessity for such a condition must stem from specific circumstances, not applied as a blanket rule.
No 'Straitjacket Formula', Says Court
Importantly, the High Court also clarified that it is not desirable to create any rigid, one-size-fits-all formulation for imposing such conditions. The bench observed that judicial discretion must remain flexible, as even a single additional fact can change the outcome of a case. Any attempt to crystallize this discretion into a rigid definition would be a "quixotic endeavour."
The court concluded that the exercise of this discretion must always be case-specific, dependent on the unique facts presented, and guided by the principles of justice, equity, and good conscience. This ruling reinforces the delicate balance between ensuring an accused's presence for trial and protecting their fundamental right to personal liberty.
