Courts Can't Order Accused To Deposit Passport On "Unfounded Apprehensions" That He May Flee, Violates Fundamental Rights: AP High Court

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has overturned a lower court's order to retain the passport of a former airline employee, facing criminal charges.

Justice BS Bhanumathi emphasized the importance of constitutional rights to freedom of movement and livelihood and said,

“As rightly contended by the petitioner, right to freedom of movement under Article 19 and right to life and liberty which includes livelihood under Article 21 of the Constitution of India are fundamental rights guaranteed. Therefore, to curtail such right(s) there must be due procedure established by law. In the present case, except due to a stray argument and unfounded apprehension, with a mere observation that for the purpose of expeditious trial, the Court ordered deposit of the passport.”

Petitioner's passport was allegedly stolen. To obtain a reissued passport, he sought a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the court dealing with an ongoing criminal case against him. The court initially directed the Regional Passport Officer to issue a new passport and submit it to the court's custody. When the petitioner filed for the return of his passport, the court rejected his request, leading to the present petition before the High Court.

During the proceedings, the petitioner's counsel argued that the lower court's order to retain the passport violated the petitioner's fundamental rights under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution, which guarantee freedom of movement and the right to life and liberty, including livelihood. The counsel emphasized that the petitioner, a pilot by profession, required his passport for employment opportunities and that no such condition for passport retention was imposed when he was initially granted bail in the criminal case.

In response, the Public Prosecutor, representing the respondent, contended that the trial court's decision to retain the passport was justified to ensure the petitioner's availability for the trial and to prevent any potential delay in case proceedings.

High Court found no substantial reason or evidence to support the apprehension that the petitioner might flee from trial, noting that he had previously possessed a valid passport without any such restrictions.

The judgment relied heavily on the Supreme Court's ruling in Suresh Nanda vs. C.B.I, which established that courts do not have the power to impound passports under Section 104 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The court also cited the Andhra Pradesh High Court's decision in D. Suryaprakash Venkata Rao vs. State of A.P., which reinforced this principle.

Furthermore, Justice Bhanumathi observed that the proper procedure for impounding a passport lies with the Passport Authority under Section 10(3) of the Passport Act, not with the criminal courts. She also noted that no conditions regarding passport retention or travel restrictions were imposed when the petitioner was initially granted bail in the criminal case or in other cases against him.

Based on these considerations, the High Court allowed the petition and set aside the lower court's order to retain the passport. The court directed the trial court to return the passport to the petitioner upon proper identification and an undertaking to cooperate with the expeditious disposal of the cases.

Criminal Petition No.1729 of 2023

VENKATESWARA RAO MALADI vs. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Counsel for petitioner: UMESH CHANDRA P V G

Counsel for respondent: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

Click Here To Read/Download Order