State of U.P. and Another vs Party(s)

Trial Court were stayed until further orders. The applicant has moved an application for releasing of passport, which was rejected by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Buddha Nagar vide order dated 23.01.2025. Applicant has preferred an application under Section 528 BNSS against the order dated 23.01.2025 before this Court, wherein by order dated

19.05.2025, the said order dated 23.01.2025 was quashed and the Trial Court was directed to release the passport of applicant. In pursuance to 2 NA528 No. 29229 of 2025 the said order, learned In-charge Chief Judicial Magistrate has passed the impugned order dated 23.05.2025, whereby the passport of applicant was released subject to certain conditions. One of the condition is that applicant shall seek prior permission of the Court before any foreign visit. Learned counsel submitted that applicant is aggrieved with this condition. It was submitted that when the impugned proceedings have been stayed by this Court, why the applicant would seek permission from the Trial Court. It was also pointed out that in order dated 19.05.2025 passed by this Court, there was no such direction that Trial Court shall impose any such condition. The applicant has to often visit foreign countries. Referring to the facts of the matter it was submitted that the said condition is arbitrary and thus liable to be quashed. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon a case of Shripal Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Another 2025:AHC:152064.

4. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 have opposed the application and submitted that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 submitted that there are serious allegations of cheating and breach of trust against applicant and the case involves international ramifications. It is further submitted that by order dated 19.05.2025 this Court has directed to release the passport of the applicant but there was no such direction that passport shall be released without any condition. It was submitted that in view of the nature of accusations, the Court can always impose such condition that applicant shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court. Referring to the facts of the matter, it was submitted that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order.

5. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.

6. In the instant matter, perusal of record shows that the applicant is accused in the aforesaid case. It appears that applicant was granted anticipatory bail subject to condition that he shall surrender his passport. Accordingly, the applicant has surrendered his passport and later he has moved an application for release of the passport. That application was rejected by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Buddha Nagar vide order dated 23.01.2025. The applicant has preferred an application under 3 NA528 No. 29229 of 2025 Section 528 BNSS against the order dated 23.01.2025, which was allowed vide order dated 19.05.2025, whereby the aforesaid order dated

23.01.2025 was quashed and the Court concerned was directed to release the passport of the applicant. In compliance of that order, learned In- charge Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Buddha Nagar had passed impugned order dated 23.05.2025, whereby the passport of applicant was released subject to certain conditions. One of the condition is that applicant shall not leave the country without permission of the Court. The grievance of the applicant is that the said condition is arbitrary and against the order of this Court. On behalf of prosecution, it was submitted that there are serious allegations of cheating and breach of trust and case involves international ramifications. In view of attending facts and circumstances, it can not be said that the said condition is arbitrary or against provisions of law. No doubt by order dated 19.05.2025, this Court has directed the Court concerned to release the passport of the applicant but it is implied that in such matters the Court can impose certain conditions, while releasing the passport. The case of Shripal Singh (supra) deals with a situation, where condition of furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 35 lakhs with one surety was imposed, which was set aside by this Court. That condition was set aside in specific facts and circumstances of that case. That case does not provide any help to the applicant in the instant matter.

7. It may be observed that extraordinary powers under Section 528 BNSS have to be invoked to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure ends of justice or to give effect to any order under the BNSS. In the instant matter, no such case is made out. The application under Section 528 BNSS lacks merit and thus liable to be dismissed.

8. The application under Section 528 BNSS is dismissed. September 9, 2025 SK Srivastava (Raj Beer Singh,J.) SAILESH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Trial Court were stayed until further orders. The applicant has moved an application for releasing of passport, which was rejected by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Buddha Nagar vide order dated 23.01.2025. Applicant has preferred an application under Section 528 BNSS against the order dated 23.01.2025 before this Court, wherein by order dated

19.05.2025, the said order dated 23.01.2025 was quashed and the Trial Court was directed to release the passport of applicant. In pursuance to 2 NA528 No. 29229 of 2025 the said order, learned In-charge Chief Judicial Magistrate has passed the impugned order dated 23.05.2025, whereby the passport of applicant was released subject to certain conditions. One of the condition is that applicant shall seek prior permission of the Court before any foreign visit. Learned counsel submitted that applicant is aggrieved with this condition. It was submitted that when the impugned proceedings have been stayed by this Court, why the applicant would seek permission from the Trial Court. It was also pointed out that in order dated 19.05.2025 passed by this Court, there was no such direction that Trial Court shall impose any such condition. The applicant has to often visit foreign countries. Referring to the facts of the matter it was submitted that the said condition is arbitrary and thus liable to be quashed. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon a case of Shripal Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Another 2025:AHC:152064.

4. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 have opposed the application and submitted that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 submitted that there are serious allegations of cheating and breach of trust against applicant and the case involves international ramifications. It is further submitted that by order dated 19.05.2025 this Court has directed to release the passport of the applicant but there was no such direction that passport shall be released without any condition. It was submitted that in view of the nature of accusations, the Court can always impose such condition that applicant shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court. Referring to the facts of the matter, it was submitted that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order.

5. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.

6. In the instant matter, perusal of record shows that the applicant is accused in the aforesaid case. It appears that applicant was granted anticipatory bail subject to condition that he shall surrender his passport. Accordingly, the applicant has surrendered his passport and later he has moved an application for release of the passport. That application was rejected by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Buddha Nagar vide order dated 23.01.2025. The applicant has preferred an application under 3 NA528 No. 29229 of 2025 Section 528 BNSS against the order dated 23.01.2025, which was allowed vide order dated 19.05.2025, whereby the aforesaid order dated

23.01.2025 was quashed and the Court concerned was directed to release the passport of the applicant. In compliance of that order, learned In- charge Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Buddha Nagar had passed impugned order dated 23.05.2025, whereby the passport of applicant was released subject to certain conditions. One of the condition is that applicant shall not leave the country without permission of the Court. The grievance of the applicant is that the said condition is arbitrary and against the order of this Court. On behalf of prosecution, it was submitted that there are serious allegations of cheating and breach of trust and case involves international ramifications. In view of attending facts and circumstances, it can not be said that the said condition is arbitrary or against provisions of law. No doubt by order dated 19.05.2025, this Court has directed the Court concerned to release the passport of the applicant but it is implied that in such matters the Court can impose certain conditions, while releasing the passport. The case of Shripal Singh (supra) deals with a situation, where condition of furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 35 lakhs with one surety was imposed, which was set aside by this Court. That condition was set aside in specific facts and circumstances of that case. That case does not provide any help to the applicant in the instant matter.

7. It may be observed that extraordinary powers under Section 528 BNSS have to be invoked to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure ends of justice or to give effect to any order under the BNSS. In the instant matter, no such case is made out. The application under Section 528 BNSS lacks merit and thus liable to be dismissed.

8. The application under Section 528 BNSS is dismissed. September 9, 2025 SK Srivastava (Raj Beer Singh,J.) SAILESH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad