Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Passport Deposit Condition Imposed While Granting Anticipatory Bail; Holds Such Restriction Cannot Be Mechanical or Disproportionate

Case Name: Ram Lubhaya and Others v. State of Punjab and Another

Date of Judgment: 19 December 2025

Citation: CRR-134-2020

Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sumeet Goel

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed the criminal revision and modified the anticipatory bail order to the extent of setting aside the condition requiring the petitioners to deposit their passports before the trial court. The Court held that while criminal courts possess discretion to impose conditions while granting bail, such conditions must satisfy the test of proportionality and must be directly connected to securing the presence of the accused or protecting the integrity of the trial. Mechanical imposition of passport-deposit conditions, without any material indicating flight risk, was held to be legally unsustainable.

Summary: The revision petition was confined to a limited challenge against a condition imposed by the Sessions Court while granting anticipatory bail to the petitioners in a private criminal complaint involving allegations of demolition of a religious structure, criminal intimidation, and allied offences. The Sessions Court had directed the petitioners to deposit their passports as a condition for bail, despite the fact that the petitioners were summoned only for comparatively lesser offences and had cooperated with the proceedings.

The High Court undertook an exhaustive examination of the statutory framework governing bail under the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, read with constitutional protections under Article 21. It reiterated that bail conditions are meant to ensure availability of the accused, prevent tampering with evidence, and secure fair trial, and not to impose punitive or excessive restrictions on personal liberty.

Relying upon authoritative Supreme Court precedents including Munish Bhasin, Kunal Kumar Tiwari, Frank Vitus, and Suresh Nanda, the Court held that surrender or impounding of a passport stands on a distinct legal footing governed primarily by the Passports Act, 1967. The power to impose bail conditions cannot be stretched to indirectly achieve what the statute specifically reserves for passport authorities.

The Court found no material on record to suggest that the petitioners posed any flight risk or were likely to evade the process of law. It further noted that the petitioners were residents with deep roots in society and that no justification had been recorded by the Sessions Court demonstrating necessity for such a restrictive condition. The condition was held to be disproportionate, onerous, and violative of settled bail jurisprudence.

At the same time, the Court clarified that in appropriate cases, where facts justify, courts may impose travel-related restrictions or require prior permission before leaving the country, but such measures must be based on cogent reasons and cannot be imposed as a matter of routine.

Decision: The revision petition was allowed. The condition directing the petitioners to deposit their passports as part of the anticipatory bail order was set aside. The remaining terms and conditions of the bail order were left undisturbed.