The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.Cl528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to Quash and set aside the orders passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge at Metpally District Jagtial in Cr.Mp.No.79 of 2025 dated 2U10t?fl25 in SC.No.295 of 2O25 and direct the Assistant Session Judge Metpally b return the original passports of the petitioners, in the lnGrest of Jr.rstice. This Petition corning on for hearing {lpon perusing the Mgmorandurn of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the argurnents of Sri TFTELU PRATHAP, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Sri Jithender Rao VeeramaHa, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.14134 OF 2025 ORDER: This Clriminal Petition is filed seeking to set aside the order, dated 23.10.2025, passed in Crl.M.P.No.79 of 2O25 in S.C.No.295 of 2021 by tlre learned Senior Civil Judge-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge, Metperlli, whereby, the petition filed by the petitioners seeking return of their original passports, was dismissed.

2. Heard ,Sri Thelu Pratap, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Jithrender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the tria! Court has pasised an erroneous order by dismissing the petition seeking releas,e of the passports of the petitioners and that the trial Court cannot withhold their passports. He further submitted that the petitioners werc acquitted in S.C.No.295 of 2021, following which they have filed rihe present petition before the trial Court, under Rule 219 of the Criminal Rules of Practice (for short, 'the Rules'), seeking return of their original passports bearing Nos.59709820 and U6152658, and the said petition was dismissed by the trial Court, which is not just and proper. Once the case ended in acquittal, the ) ETD,J Crl.P.No.l,t 134 of 2O25 documents ought to have been returned under Rule 219 of the Rules, unless a reason is shown that the said documents are required for the purpose of appeal. Thus, the trial Court is not justifred in dismissing the present petition. He, therefore, prayed to set aside the impugned order, dated 23.10.2o2s, and allow the Criminal Petition.

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the trial court has passed a reasoned order and that there is no need to interfere with the same.

5. Perused the record.

6. since the present crr.Mp.No.79 of 20zs is fired under Rure 219 of the criminar Rures of practice, the same is extracted hereunder for the sake of reference: "219. Return of documents - application to be made therefor:- Applications from parties or other persons for the return of documents fired in court sha, be made to the court in wtrich they were originary fired. rf apprication is made for any document which has been transmitted to anothen court, the court in which the document was origina*y fired sha, itself apply for the transmission of the documents,and on receipt shalt return it to the applicant: \ 3 ETD,J Crl.P.No.l4l34 of 2025 Provided that no document shall be returned unless the Judge or Magistrate is satisfied that it will not be requirerd for reference in proceedings pending either before his owtr Court or the Court of Appeal or Revision'"

7. Thus, it document can be withheld by the trial Court only if the document is required in the proceedings in the Court of appeal. ln the present citse, the passports are sought to be returned. There is no reason hotv would be passport, a document, to be considered by the court of appeal. lt is borne out by record that the sessions case ended in acquittal, as the prosecution witnesses turned hostile,pursuanttowhichthepresentpetitionhasbeenfiled.The trial court is under an apprehension that appeal would be preferred bytheState.]-hereisnoimpedimentandtheStatehaseveryright topreferanappeal,butthisCourtdoesnotunderstandthereason assignedbythetrialCourt.ThetrialCourthasemphasizedonthe provisotoRule2lgoftheRulesandhasrecordeditsdissatisfaction bybankinghe;avilyupontheantecedentsofthepetitionersand observedthatthepetitionershaveabscondedearlierduringthemid- trialandtherefore,theirpresencemayberequiredduringpendency oftheappealarrdthatthereiseverychancefortheStatetoprefer an appeal' Therefore' till the expiry of appeal time' the trial Court wasnotinclinetltoreleasethepassports.Butthatshouldnotbe ' ' t'"" .l 'l}z' 4 ETD'J of 2025 Crl.P.No'[4134 thetesttobeapplied.TheprovisotoRute2lgoftheRulesstates thattheCourtshouldbepimafaciesatisfredthatthedocumel.tis notrequiredduringpendencyoftheproceedingsintlreappellate Courtinordertoreturnthesaiddocument.ThisCourtdoesnot xamined during the understand the necessity of a passport to be e"- course of proceedings in the appeal' When the docunrent is not so required for the proceedings in an appeal, there is no reason to withhold the same' lt is not out of place to mention that all the witnessesbeforethetrialCourtturnedhostileandtherewasno evidencebeforethetrialCourtandthus,itendedinacquittal.lfan appeal is preferred by the State no new evidence would be producedforwhichthepassportsarerequiredtobeexamined. Thus,inthecircumstances,thereasonsassignedbythetrialCourt for dismissing the petition is not at alljustified' S.Further,aco.ordinatebenchofthisCourtinCrl.P.No.4oTSof 2025 dated 0287 '2025' lreld as under: "15. As seen from the above' Section 436(1) Cr'P'C' stipulatesthatwhenaperson/accusedofabailableoffenceis arrested or detained without any warrant and is prepared to furnishbail,heshallbereleasedonbail.Thelanguageofthe rd confers an absolute and provision is mandatory ano collleru crrr indefeasibteri$httobail.Theonlydiscretionvesfedinthe \r/ 5 Court pertains to the amount of the bond or n ,t does oot erran, *^ --_.. .,;; imposin g travel restrictions. ",, ff:"j;J:[,:::#T:,il."il ;fii:i*j[ ,crt. p. No. r 4 r 3 4 "fE;D2j umbe.r bf sureties; ' The rearned singre Judge has discussed the decision of the Bombay High court in sultan Kamruddin Dharani v. union of tndiar and that of the Honourabre Apex court in suresh Nanda v. c.B.t.2 and has a'owed crr'p.No.4g7g of 2025 by setting aside the conditions imposed by the triar court asking the petitioner therein to deposit his original passport. I' The Horr'bre supreme court in suresh Nanda,s case (supra 2) laid down th'e principre that impounding of a passport is a function exclusivery confe'ed on the passport Authority under section 10(3) of the Passports Act, 1967, and cannot be assumed or exercised by a criminar courr under section 104 0fcr.p.c. The court crarified the legal distinctio. between seizing and impounding, hording that impounding impries retention for a continuing period and that such retention cannot be done by courts or police authorities without complying with rihe procedure established under the passports Act. Thus, the power to impound or retain a passport lies solelv with the ')gt8 SCC onLine llom 1347 lzoo:[) i scc 674 , I 6 ETD,J Crl.P.No.l4l34 of 2025 Passport Authority, and not with the criminal. courts, even if the passport is produced before them during proceedings. ln the present case, it is not the case of the prosecution that any steps have been initiated under the Passports Act for impounding the passport of the petitioner. lnstead, the trial court imposed a blanket restriction through a bail condition, thereby exceeding its jurisdiction and infringing upon the personal liberty of the petitioner.

10. Thus, in view of the statutory position and the decision of the Honourable Apex court in suresh Nanda's case (supra 2) with regard to impounding of passport, it is held that the passport cannot be impounded by any other authority, but for passport authority of lndia. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the trial court is erroneous. The trial Court ought to have altowed the petition and returned the passports of the petitioners. The trial court has no authority to retain the passports of the petitioners. Hence, the order, dated 23.10.2025, is liable to be set askCe.

11. Accordingly, the criminal Petition is a[owed and the order, dated 23.10.2025, passed in cr:l.M.p.No.79 of 2o2s in s.c.No.z9s of 2021 by the learned Senior civil Judge-cum-Assistant sessions \ \'/ 7 ETD,J ' Crl.P.No. I 4 I 3 4 of 2025 Judge, Met,oalli, is set aside and the trial Court is directed to return the passports to the petitioners Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. sD/- NIVASAREDDY ,TTRUE COPY'I OFFICER To,

1. The Senipr Civil Judge-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge, Metpalli, 2. The Station House Officer, Metpalli Police Stiation, Nizambad. 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

4. One CC to SRI THELU PRATHAP, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD C:opies NVB/PSL w a ? HIGH COURT DATED:2111112025 S o\( 3 toJtN2o26 t o * t I CRLP.No'1'4134 of 2025 I THE CRIMINAL PETITPN ttUtel % &,^,