Conditional release of passport for foreign travel permitted despite prior non-compliance where both parties contributed to trial delay.

The applicant sought to quash an order dated June 2, 2025, passed by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Gandhinagar, which rejected his request for the temporary release of his passport to visit Canada for Permanent Residency (P.R.) purposes.

The applicant is an accused in C.R. No. 11216022230049 of 2023 under Sections 394, 395, 397, 120B, 506(2), and 114 of the IPC.

Although granted anticipatory bail in 2023, he previously failed to surrender his passport or obtain permission before traveling abroad, leading to a rejection by the Trial Court.

The High Court called for a status report, which indicated that while the accused had delayed proceedings, the complainant was also responsible for delays in the trial.

Whether the applicant's request for the temporary release of his passport and permission to travel abroad for obtaining Permanent Residency should be granted despite previous non-compliance with bail conditions.

The court exercised its inherent and discretionary powers under the Code of Criminal Procedure/Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (implicit in quashing/modification applications) and the Gujarat Police Act.

It balanced the right to travel and personal liberty with the state's interest in ensuring the presence of the accused at trial.

The court emphasized that while conduct is a factor, where both parties contribute to trial delays, a petition for travel may be considered subject to "stringent conditions" to prevent the accused from fleeing justice.

The Court analyzed the Trial Court's report, which noted that the applicant had previously defied orders by staying abroad for several months without surrendering his passport.

However, the Court observed from the Sessions Court's report that the trial's delay was a result of the conduct of "both the parties" (accused and complainant).

Consequently, the Court reasoned that the total denial of travel would be disproportionate if the risk of flight could be mitigated.

To safeguard the judicial process, the Court imposed a significant security deposit of Rs. 5,00,000/- and a solvent surety, while mandating a strict timeline for the return and surrender of the passport.

It further ensured the trial's continuity by requiring the applicant to appear via virtual mode or through an advocate during his absence.

The Court directed the release of the passport subject to: (i) a deposit of Rs. 5,00,000/- and a solvent surety; (ii) submission of a detailed itinerary and contact details; (iii) an undertaking not to dispute proceedings conducted in his absence; and (iv) the surrender of the passport by June 15, 2026.

Rule was made absolute to this extent.