Passport impounded solely pursuant to superseded court directions must be released absent independent adverse grounds.

The petitioner held Passport No. Z4648916, issued on 17 January 2018 after receipt of a clear police report.

In connection with Bhagwanbazar P.S. Case No. 562 of 2019, involving offences under Sections 406, 426 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioner’s anticipatory-bail application was rejected by the Patna High Court on 20 December 2021 and 12 January 2022.

The High Court directed the Superintendent of Police, Saran, to secure the petitioner’s arrest and take steps for cancellation or impounding of his passport, as the petitioner was stated to be residing in Saudi Arabia.

Pursuant to the police request and the High Court’s order, the Regional Passport Office issued a show-cause notice dated 18 February 2022. The petitioner submitted an explanation on 25 February 2022. Thereafter, the Passport Office impounded his passport by order dated 3 March 2022 under Section 10(3)(e) of the Passports Act, 1967.

By order dated 26 September 2023, the Supreme Court disposed of the proceedings by directing that, in the event of arrest, the petitioners be released on bail, subject to their cooperation with the investigation, while reserving liberty to seek cancellation of bail in case of non-cooperation.

The pending anticipatory-bail application before the Patna High Court was thereafter consigned on 7 November 2023.

When the petitioner sought its release, the Passport Office issued a further notice dated 24 December 2024 requiring him to produce a final acquittal order or a no-objection certificate permitting departure from India.

Whether the petitioner’s passport could continue to remain impounded on the basis of the Patna High Court’s earlier direction, after the Supreme Court had granted protection and the pending proceedings before the High Court had been consigned?

Whether the Passport Office was justified in requiring the petitioner to produce a final acquittal order or a court-issued no-objection certificate as a condition for release of the passport?

Whether the impounding order dated 3 March 2022 and the subsequent notice dated 24 December 2024 were liable to be quashed?

The Court applied Section 10(3)(e) of the Passports Act, 1967, under which a passport may be impounded where proceedings concerning an offence allegedly committed by the passport-holder are pending before a criminal court, and Section 10(3)(h), which permits impounding where a warrant, summons, arrest warrant, or order prohibiting departure from India has been issued by a competent court and the Passport Authority is satisfied of that fact.

The Court also considered the requirement of procedural fairness and the principles of natural justice, noting that the Passport Office had issued a show-cause notice before the original impounding order.

The relevant exemption framework under GSR 570(E) dated 25 August 1993 was relied upon by the respondents in contending that court permission or a no-objection certificate was necessary for departure from India.

The governing principle applied by the Court was that an administrative restriction on a passport must remain supported by a subsisting statutory or judicial basis; once the judicial direction forming its basis has ceased to operate and no independent adverse circumstance exists, continued impounding cannot be justified.

The Court accepted that the passport had initially been impounded pursuant to the High Court’s direction issued after rejection of anticipatory bail and intended to secure the petitioner’s arrest.

However, the Supreme Court subsequently granted interim protection and ultimately directed that the petitioners be released on bail in the event of arrest, subject to cooperation with the investigation.

The High Court thereafter took note of the Supreme Court’s order and consigned the pending matter. Consequently, the original judicial basis for withholding the passport no longer survived.

The Court further held that the respondents had not identified any independent irregularity or illegality in the passport or any subsequent adverse material against the petitioner.

The Passport Office’s insistence on a final acquittal order was therefore unwarranted because the Supreme Court had granted bail and had not required the petitioner to obtain an acquittal before receiving relief.

The Court characterised the continued demand for an acquittal order, in the circumstances, as unjustified and held that the respondents were required to process the petitioner’s request in light of the subsequent judicial developments.

The impounding order dated 3 March 2022 concerning Passport No. Z4648916 was set aside.

The Regional Passport Officer, Patna, was directed to release the petitioner’s passport forthwith, provided that no independent adverse material had been found against him.

The writ petition was accordingly disposed of without costs.