"Unusual": Bombay HC Quashes Bail Condition Requiring Accused Who Does Not Have A Passport To Deposit It
The Bombay High Court set aside an unusual bail condition imposed by the trial court requiring an accused to deposit his passport, despite him not having one.
The Goa Bench explained that while imposing a condition for the grant of bail, a Trial Court does not have the power to direct a person to apply for a passport, obtain it and then surrender it. The Court clarified that the direction to deposit a passport could be given only if an accused already possesses it.
A Single Bench of Justice Bharat P. Deshpande observed, “The unusual condition which has been imposed in the first place and thereafter, failed to modify it, clearly shows that the learned Additional Sessions Judge travelled beyond its powers and imposed such conditions, which is normally not required when granting bail.”
Advocate Vibhav R. Amonkar appeared for the petitioner, while PP S.G. Bhobe represented the respondents.
The accused was arrested after an FIR was registered against him for offences under Sections 307, 504, 506 (ii) read with Section 34 of the IPC.
An unusual condition was imposed upon the accused while releasing him on bail by the Trial Court and when an Application was moved for modification of such an order, a further unusual condition was put, which was challenged before the High Court.
One of the bail conditions stipulated the accused to deposit his passport before the Court. The accused argued that he did not possess any passport. The memo on behalf of the mother of the Petitioner stating the said fact was placed before the Sessions Court, however, that was not considered at all.
“In view of such affidavit filed for modification and the statement of the investigating agency that the Applicant does not possess the passport and that he never applied for issuance of a passport, the learned Additional Sessions Court ought to have considered the Application for relaxation of such condition and at the most, could have directed the Petitioner to deposit the passport, if any,” the Court remarked.
However, the trial court adopted an even more “strange course” by directing the accused to surrender his passport within four months.
The High Court clarified that the trial court wanted the accused to first apply for a passport and upon receipt of it, deposit with the Court. “While imposing the condition for the grant of bail, the learned Trial Court does 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 be given only if the Petitioner or the Accused possesses it,” the accused remarked.
Consequently, the Bench held, “The impugned order is required to be quashed and set aside and the Application filed for modification of condition no. 3 needs to be allowed by modifying condition.”
Accordingly, the High Court disposed of the petition.
Cause Title: Zakaulla Khazi v. State Of Goa & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024:BHC-GOA:1079)
