1. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 19th November, 2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.1864/2011 and has prayed to return his passport bearing No.F-2306365 issued on 30th March, 2005 and whose validity has expired on 29th March, 2010 for the purpose of applying for and obtaining a new valid passport and thereafter to permit the petitioner to travel abroad in the month of April, 2012 subject to such reasonable terms as the court may deem fit.
2. A first information report bearing Waghodia Police Station I-C.R. No.169/2008 came to be lodged on 19th September, 2008 against the petitioner and others for the offences punishable under sections 465, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner moved an application for regular bail before the Sessions Court, Vadodara which came to be allowed vide order dated 15th November, 2008. However, while enlarging the petitioner on bail, one of the conditions imposed was that the petitioner should deposit his passport with the court. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner deposited his passport with the court. Thereafter, the petitioner being desirous of travelling abroad made an application, being Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.449/2011, for return of the passport, which came to be partly allowed vide an order dated 18th March, 2011 whereby the court did not grant the application to the extent the petitioner had sought permission to travel abroad however, the court had directed that the passport be returned to the petitioner for a period of three months so as to enable him to get the same renewed. However, while passing the said order, a condition to deposit Rs.1,00,000/- in cash as well as providing personal bond etc. had been made. It appears that at the relevant time, the petitioner did not avail of the benefit of the said order. Thereafter, the petitioner moved another application on 19th October, 2011 being Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.1864/2011 seeking return of the passport. By the impugned order, the said application came to be rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, on the ground that on an earlier occasion, the petitioner had moved such an application which came to be partly granted however, the petitioner had not availed of the benefit thereof. Thereafter, the present application has been made seeking return of passport. The learned Additional Sessions Judge was of the view that the relief prayed for in the application cannot be granted as the same would amount to modification of the earlier order dated 15th November, 2008 passed by the court whereby the petitioner was required to deposit his passport and accordingly rejected the application.
3. Ms. Namrata Chauhan, learned advocate for Ms. Kruti Shah, learned advocate for the petitioner invited attention to the reliefs claimed in the petition. It was submitted that at this stage, the petitioner would not press the relief seeking permission to travel abroad. However, it may be directed that the passport of the petitioner be returned for a period of forty five days so as to enable the petitioner to get the same renewed. That in case the petitioner desires to travel abroad; he will move an appropriate application before the Sessions Court. It was submitted that considering the nature of the offence alleged as well as considering that on an earlier occasion, the trial court had thought it fit to permit return of the passport to the petitioner for three months, the application deserves to be allowed.
4. On the other hand, Mr. K.P. Raval, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that there is no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge inasmuch as the grant of the relief claimed in the application made by the petitioner would amount to modification of the conditions of bail. It was submitted that in any case, it is always permissible for the petitioner to move the Sessions Court for appropriate orders. It was, however, submitted that in case the court is inclined to grant the limited relief prayed for by the petitioner, conditions may be imposed while returning the passport.
5. A perusal of the record of the case shows that it is true that in the application made before the Sessions Court, the petitioner had made an unqualified prayer for return of the passport, the grant of which would certainly amount to modification of the conditions of bail. Under the circumstances, no infirmity can be found in the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in holding that the petitioner was not entitled to the relief claimed in the application. However, in the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for return of the passport for the purpose of obtaining a new valid passport as the validity of the earlier passport has expired on 29th March, 2010. Insofar as the relief seeking permission to travel abroad is concerned, the same has already been rendered infructuous due to passage of time. The learned advocate has, therefore, prayed that the passport be returned for a period of forty five days to enable the petitioner to get a new valid passport.
6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, though it is not possible to state that there is any infirmity in the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, it would, however, be in the interest of justice if the limited prayer as prayed for by the petitioner is granted. As noticed earlier, the petitioner had moved an application on an earlier occasion seeking return of the passport and the learned Sessions Judge after carrying due inquiry had directed return of the passport for a period of three months. Under the circumstances, there can be no objection to the return of the passport to the petitioner for a limited period of forty five days. Under the circumstances, instead of relegating the petitioner to file another application seeking return of the passport, the interest of justice would be met with if the present petition is allowed by directing that the passport of the petitioner be returned to him for a period of forty five days so as to enable him to obtain a new valid passport.
7. For the foregoing reasons, the petition partly succeeds and is accordingly allowed. It is directed that the petitioner shall be returned the passport bearing No.F-2306365 for a period of forty five days from the date on which the same is handed over to him. It is further directed that as soon as the new valid passport/renewed passport is received by the petitioner or upon expiry of the period of forty five days as aforesaid, whichever is earlier, the petitioner shall forthwith deposit the same with the trial court. Rule is made absolute accordingly to the aforesaid extent.
( Harsha Devani, J. ) hki