In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has cautioned trial courts against imposing the condition of depositing a passport as a routine or automatic precondition for granting bail. The court emphasized that such a direction must be based solely on objective factors indicating a clear and imminent threat to the administration of justice.
Court Modifies Bail Order in Idol Desecration Case
The observations were made by Justice Sumeet Goel on December 19, 2025, while hearing a plea challenging a sessions court order. The accused individuals had been granted anticipatory bail in a case alleging the desecration of a religious idol, but the bail was contingent upon them surrendering their passports to the court.
The case stemmed from a criminal complaint alleging that the accused conspired and demolished a foundation (Thara) along with idols of Lord Shiva and his family in broad daylight, thereby hurting the religious sentiments of the complainant and local residents.
Justice Goel modified the lower court's order, setting aside the condition requiring the surrender of passports. The court directed the release of the petitioners' passports without any requirement to deposit them before the trial court.
‘Deposit’ is Not ‘Impounding’: A Critical Legal Distinction
The High Court drew a crucial legal distinction between a court ordering the deposit of a passport and the statutory impounding of a passport. Justice Goel clarified that the judicial imposition of a requirement to deposit a passport is a regulatory measure.
In contrast, the power to impound a passport is exclusively governed by Section 10(3) of the Passports Act, 1967, and is vested solely with the designated Passport Authority. The court explicitly stated that a directive to deposit a passport does not, in law, amount to its "seizure or impounding" under the Passport Act.
The court also underscored that a passport is not merely a travel document but serves as a vital proof of nationality and identity.
Judicial Discretion Must Be Guided by Principles, Not Whim
In a profound reflection on the nature of judicial power, Justice Goel referred to an age-old legal adage to guide the exercise of discretion in imposing bail conditions. The court quoted: "A judge, even when he is free, is still not wholly free. He is not to innovate at pleasure. He is not a knight-errant roaming at will in pursuit of his own ideal of beauty or of goodness. He is to draw his inspiration from consecrated principles."
The judgment elaborated that a judge's discretion should be "informed by tradition, methodised by analogy, disciplined by system, and subordinated to the primordial necessity of order in the social life."
The court firmly stated that the condition of depositing a passport must not be employed as a punitive measure against an under-trial accused, who is presumed innocent until proven guilty. It should be exercised in accordance with the principles of "justice, equity and good conscience."
The authority to impose such a condition should not be exercised in a "rote or automatic manner," the bench ruled. Instead, it must stem from a deliberative assessment of the peculiar factual matrix of each individual case. The court found it neither "fathomable nor desirable" to adopt a straitjacket formula for this precondition.
This ruling reinforces the need for a balanced and reasoned approach in bail conditions, protecting individual liberties while safeguarding the judicial process.
