Passport deposit cannot replace court-controlled travel

The Supreme Court of India, in a judgment by Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ., dealt with a dispute over whether an accused should be required to deposit his passport while criminal proceedings were pending.

The appellant had complained about the suspicious unnatural death of his father. An unnatural death case was first registered, and later FIR No. 173 of 2014 was filed for offences under Sections 120-B and 306 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The respondent was arrayed as an accused. A chargesheet followed in 2016.

The respondent had earlier sought quashing of the proceedings and had also sought permission to travel abroad. His request to travel was rejected in 2015. He later obtained suspension of the Look Out Circular and left India in 2017. After returning to India in April 2025, he was arrested at Hyderabad airport. He then sought return of his passport before the Magistrate.

The Magistrate allowed release of the passport, while clarifying that release did not itself amount to permission to leave India. The Sessions Judge reversed that order and directed deposit of the passport. The High Court then allowed the respondent’s revision and permitted him to travel to the United States subject to conditions. The State challenged that order before the Supreme Court.

The appellant argued that the respondent had misused the process, suppressed material facts, and should not be allowed to travel until trial concluded. The respondent argued that passport surrender would unjustifiably curtail his right to travel abroad under Article 21, and that he had medical reasons and family and business ties in the United States.

The Supreme Court held that the Magistrate’s order dated 7 May 2025 was justified on the facts and did not call for interference. It set aside both the High Court’s order and the Sessions Judge’s order requiring passport deposit.

At the same time, the Court made clear that the respondent was not free to fly out of the country without permission. It held that after committal of the case, he may approach the Sessions Court for permission to travel abroad, and any such request must be decided on its own merits and in accordance with law. The Court also said appropriate conditions may be imposed if permission is granted.

The Court further directed civil, police, and airport authorities to coordinate so that the respondent does not leave India without express permission of the Sessions Court. It also clarified that its observations were not findings on the merits of the criminal case.

Practical takeaway: passport release does not end judicial control over foreign travel, and permission to travel abroad can still be required from the trial court after committal.