. CHANDIGARH: Punjab and Haryana high court has ruled that the authority vested in a criminal court to impose the condition of ‘deposit of passport’ ought not to be exercised in a “rote or automatic manner”, and such bail conditions must not unduly curtail personal liberty.HC was of the view that the condition for depositing one’s passport must be supported by specific material that points to a genuine flight risk. “It must be acknowledged that passport is not merely a travel document, but is often used as proof of nationality and identity. An order of deposit of passport as a pre-condition for bail is justifiable only on the basis of objective factors indicating a clear and imminent threat to the administration of justice, and must not be employed as a punitive measure against an undertrial accused, who is presumed innocent until proven guilty,” the bench of Justice Sumeet Goel held while deciding a criminal revision petition filed by Ram Lubhaya and others, who challenged a Nov 22, 2019, order of the additional sessions judge, Jalandhar.. HC was also of the view that it is not desirable to lay down any “straitjacket formulation” in this regard. To do so would be to crystallise into a rigid definition a judicial discretion, which even the legitimate has, for the best of all reasons, left undetermined. “Any attempt in this regard would be, to say the least, a quixotic endeavour. Circumstantial flexibility, one additional or different fact, may make a sea of difference between conclusions in two cases. Such exercise would thus, indubitably, be dependent upon the factual matrix of the particular case which the court is seisin of, since every case has its own peculiar factual conspectus. Such judicial discretion, but of course, ought to be exercised in accordance with the principles of justice, equity, and good conscience,” the court held.While the Jalandhar sessions court had granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners in a criminal case, involving charges of causing hurt and wrongful confinement, it directed them to deposit their passports before the trial magistrate. In their plea before HC, the petitioners argued that they were summoned only for comparatively less severe offences and there was no material on record to show they were a flight risk. “The condition was arbitrary, excessive, and imposed without justification. Passports are essential identity and travel documents, and their seizure caused undue hardship,” the petitioners argued.After hearing the matter, HC set aside the condition requiring the petitioners to deposit their passports, holding it to be unsupported by facts.About the AuthorAjay SuraAjay Sura is Senior Assistant Editor with The Times of India Chandigarh. He covers news concerning the State of Haryana, Punjab & Haryana High Court and Defence & Military Affairs. He likes to analyse political developments and decoding judicial pronouncements. His hobbies include travelling, mountaineering and trekking.Read MoreEnd of ArticleFollow Us On Social MediaVideosNew Video Reveals Final Moments of Hindu Man Dipu Before Lynching in BangladeshIndians Trapped By H-1B Renewal Chaos As US VP JD Vance Defends Visa Curbs As Christian PoliticsEx-TMC MLA Humayun Kabir Launches New Party, Targets Mamata Banerjee Ahead of PollsMuhammad Yunus Interim Rule Sparks Alarm, Indian Diplomats Back Hasina On Anti India Narrative ShiftYogi Adityanath Says Vande Mataram Became Victim of Congress Appeasement PoliticsNew Zealand India FTA Sparks Coalition Rift As PM Christopher Luxon Backs Deal, NZ First Rejects ItGujarat Student Says He Was Forced To Fight For Russia As Indians Remain Trapped Ukraine War CrisisPTI Leaders Hold Massive Protest in Peshawar Against Imran Khan’s 17-Year Jail SentenceBangladesh Turmoil: Another Youth Leader Shot In Head Days After Osman Hadi’s KillingAravalli Hills Row: Why Definition Battle Could Decide Mining Water Security And AQI In North India123PhotostoriesDoes Niagara Falls freeze over in winter? Here’s the truth5 reasons why okra water has become a go-to drink for people who want to manage their sugar levelsFrozen but fearless: 5 snowy animals that rule the coldest places on earthHbA1c over 6%? Nephrologist shares tests that matter beyond this level of blood sugarWhy should you add this leaf powder to your homemade winter soups? Here’s how you can make this super healthy soup10 most loved countries in the world in 2025Discover the secret of financial success according to your birth dateTop 10 richest countries in the world in 20257 simple fruit plants ideal for a lush balcony garden6 quirky book titles that instantly spark curiosity at first glance123Hot PicksUAE WeatherEpstein files releasedGold price predictionGold rate todaySilver rate todayPublic Holidays DecemberBank Holidays DecemberTop TrendingTom BradyDeshaun WatsonShai Gilgeous Alexander NBA ContractLeBron JamesVictor WembanyamaLos Angeles DodgersPaul Heyman and Marla Heyman Net WorthRavens vs PatriotsJason KelceCharles Barkley
CHANDIGARH: Punjab and Haryana high court has ruled that the authority vested in a criminal court to impose the condition of ‘deposit of passport’ ought not to be exercised in a “rote or automatic manner”, and such bail conditions must not unduly curtail personal liberty.HC was of the view that the condition for depositing one’s passport must be supported by specific material that points to a genuine flight risk. “It must be acknowledged that passport is not merely a travel document, but is often used as proof of nationality and identity. An order of deposit of passport as a pre-condition for bail is justifiable only on the basis of objective factors indicating a clear and imminent threat to the administration of justice, and must not be employed as a punitive measure against an undertrial accused, who is presumed innocent until proven guilty,” the bench of Justice Sumeet Goel held while deciding a criminal revision petition filed by Ram Lubhaya and others, who challenged a Nov 22, 2019, order of the additional sessions judge, Jalandhar.. HC was also of the view that it is not desirable to lay down any “straitjacket formulation” in this regard. To do so would be to crystallise into a rigid definition a judicial discretion, which even the legitimate has, for the best of all reasons, left undetermined. “Any attempt in this regard would be, to say the least, a quixotic endeavour. Circumstantial flexibility, one additional or different fact, may make a sea of difference between conclusions in two cases. Such exercise would thus, indubitably, be dependent upon the factual matrix of the particular case which the court is seisin of, since every case has its own peculiar factual conspectus. Such judicial discretion, but of course, ought to be exercised in accordance with the principles of justice, equity, and good conscience,” the court held.While the Jalandhar sessions court had granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners in a criminal case, involving charges of causing hurt and wrongful confinement, it directed them to deposit their passports before the trial magistrate. In their plea before HC, the petitioners argued that they were summoned only for comparatively less severe offences and there was no material on record to show they were a flight risk. “The condition was arbitrary, excessive, and imposed without justification. Passports are essential identity and travel documents, and their seizure caused undue hardship,” the petitioners argued.After hearing the matter, HC set aside the condition requiring the petitioners to deposit their passports, holding it to be unsupported by facts.
