In a significant judgment safeguarding personal liberty, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled 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 material demonstrating a genuine flight risk and should not unduly curtail the freedom of an undertrial, who is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Court Rejects "Rote" Imposition of Passport Condition
The bench of Justice Sumeet Goel delivered this ruling while deciding 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 the sessions court had granted them anticipatory bail in a case involving charges of causing hurt and wrongful confinement, it had directed them to surrender their passports to the trial magistrate.
The High Court firmly stated that a passport is not merely a travel document but a crucial proof of identity and nationality. Justice Goel held that ordering its deposit as a bail condition is justifiable only when objective factors indicate a clear and imminent threat to the administration of justice. The court warned against using this measure as a punitive tool against an accused awaiting trial.
HC Sets Aside Order, Cites Lack of Justification
In their plea, the petitioners argued that they were facing charges for less severe offences and that there was no material on record to suggest they were likely to flee the country. They contended that the condition was arbitrary, excessive, and caused them undue hardship by depriving them of an essential identity document.
After hearing the arguments, the High Court agreed. It set aside the condition requiring the petitioners to deposit their passports, declaring it disproportionate and unsupported by the factual matrix of the case. The court found no legitimate basis to brand the accused as a flight risk.
No "Straitjacket Formula," Discretion Must Be Guided
The judgment also clarified that it is not desirable to create a rigid, one-size-fits-all formulation for imposing such conditions. The court observed that circumstantial flexibility is paramount, as one additional fact can change the entire conclusion of a case. Therefore, the exercise of judicial discretion must depend on the specific facts of each case.
However, the court cautioned that this discretion is not unbridled. Quoting an age-old legal adage, Justice Goel noted, "The judge, even when he is free, is still not wholly free." He elaborated that judicial discretion must be informed by tradition, disciplined by system, and guided by the principles of justice, equity, and good conscience, rather than personal sentiment.
This ruling establishes a crucial precedent, ensuring that bail conditions are tailored, reasonable, and respect the fundamental right to personal liberty, preventing the deposit of passports from becoming a mechanical and oppressive step in the judicial process.
