Raj Vs The Inspector of Police ( CRL OP(MD). No.6022 of 2026 ) as on 06 April 2026 Madras High court
Chennai: The Madras High Court has held that a trial court cannot direct an accused person to surrender or impound their passport as a condition for granting bail, stating that such power lies exclusively with the authorities under the Passports Act, 1967.
The Court observed that while criminal courts are empowered to impose conditions while granting bail, those conditions must remain within the framework of law. The authority to impound or revoke a passport is specifically governed by the Passports Act, and not by the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Background
The case arose after a trial court, while granting bail to an accused, imposed a condition requiring the surrender of the passport. The accused challenged this condition before the High Court, contending that the trial court had exceeded its jurisdiction.
Court’s Findings
The High Court examined the relevant legal provisions and clarified that although courts may impose reasonable conditions to ensure the presence of the accused during trial, they cannot assume powers that are conferred upon a different statutory authority.
It was noted that the Passports Act provides a complete mechanism regarding issuance, impounding and revocation of passports. Therefore, directing an accused to surrender or deposit the passport effectively amounts to exercising powers reserved for the Passport Authority.
The Court further emphasized that even though Section 104 of the Code of Criminal Procedure allows courts to impound documents, passports stand on a different footing due to the special legislation governing them.
Bail Conditions Must Be Lawful
The High Court reiterated that bail conditions must be reasonable and should not unnecessarily interfere with the personal liberty of an individual. Any restriction, particularly on the right to travel, must have clear legal backing.
The Court cautioned that imposing such conditions without statutory authority would amount to overreach and could not be sustained in law.
Conclusion
Setting aside the condition imposed by the trial court, the High Court reaffirmed that judicial discretion in bail matters must operate within defined legal limits. The ruling clarifies that while courts can regulate the conduct of an accused to ensure fair trial, they cannot impose conditions that fall outside their jurisdiction.
This decision is expected to serve as guidance for subordinate courts while framing bail conditions in criminal cases.
