ORDER: The petitioner is the second accused in Crime No.311 of 2013 of Kurnool II-town P.S. The petitioner was granted regular bail by order of the learned Sessions Judge under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crl.M.P. No.1043 of 2014 in Crime No.311 of Kurnool II Town P.S. The petitioner was enlarged on regular bail by order dated 12.6.2014 in Crl.M.P. No.1043 of 2014. Crime is registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 385 read with 120-B of I.P.C. and under Sections 3 to 6 read with Section 2(c) of Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978. Needless to say against the petitioner-accused, there are more than 10 crimes pending within two States and the investigation by virtue of direction of this Court in W.P. No.15493 of 2014, dated 10.6.2014 is entrusted to Additional Director General of Police, CID, Hyderabad. Coming back to the bail order of the learned Sessions Judge, dated 12.6.2014 at paragraph-10 conditions imposed include execution of self- bold for Rs.1 lakh with two sureties for a likesum each to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurnool, appearing before the Investigating Officer i.e., Deputy Superintendent of Police, RO, CID, Kurnool named therein every second Saturday between 10.00 a.m. and 12.00 noon until further orders and to surrender his two original passports of United States of America and Australia respectively, before the investigation officers supra within two weeks of the said order granting bail subject to acknowledgement and not to make any inducement or threat to the witnesses acquainted with the facts so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court. It is after the said order the petitioner-accused moved the Sessions Court under Section 439 (2) of Cr.P.C. in Crl.M.P. No.1329 of 2014 for relaxation of the conditions regarding surrender and attending before the Investigation Officer. The learned Sessions Judge returned the application by doubting jurisdiction of him to entertain the application being self-same court that has granted bail earlier and ultimately ended in dismissal by order dated 3.7.2014 in Crl.M.P. No.1329 of 2014 with an observation that what the learned counsel for the accused/petitioner contended in several of the crimes pending against the petitioner-accused among others there was no condition of impounding passport is not correct. No doubt, in one of the impugned order passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad in Crime No.123 of 2014 of CCS, Hyderabad, condition is relaxed by order dated 20.6.2014 in Crl.M.P. No.2257 of 2014. The contention of the petitioner-accused is that the impounding of passport with the police officer is not justified. For that, he placed reliance on two propositions; one GIAN SINGH v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN and the other is SURESH NANDA v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION . In fact, the first judgment in GIAN SINGH (1 supra) the Apex Court held that when the petitioner-accused is citizen of foreign country and he has to travel directly to another country even the impounding of passport is no way justified. It was not laid down as the principle but for the same to be taken as principle from the argument of the learned counsel. In fact, scope of Section 6 much less Section 10 or 10A or 10B of the Passports Act, 1967 not referred therein. Coming to the other decision in SURESH NANDA'S case (2 supra) what was laid down by the Apex Court is even a CBI official securing and retaining passport with him is nothing but confiscation without sanction of law much less by any statutory provision and the same was illegal. That proposition has no application to the present facts more particularly, it is an order of the learned Sessions Judge. In fact, the Apex Court in the Constitutional Bench Judgment in GURUBAKSH SINGH SIBBIA v. STATE OF PUNJAB and referring said expression by the Apex Court later in SIDDHARAM SATLINGAPPA MHETRE v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA , it was vividly explained what are the conditions to be laid down in granting bail which include impounding of passport by order of the Court and furnishing of the property particulars, seizure of title deeds, seizure of bank account. Needless to say attending the police station and there are nine guidelines laid down by the Constitutional Bench of the Apex Court in SIDDHARAM SATLINGAPPA MHETRES case (4 supra) which include guideline as to given police custody where anticipatory bail is sought. These are only illustrative and not exhaustive that are required to be applied depending on the facts of the case. These are only illustrative and not exhaustive that are required to be applied depending on the facts of the case. No doubt, thereby the impugned order of the learned Sessions Judge in directing to surrender the passport is no way statutorily illegal much less as per the settled propositions of the Apex Court supra. In fact as per Section 6 (2) (f) of the Passports Act, there is a provision that where the person is accused of crime in India passport can be refused or a travel permit even can be refused. After the said provision noticed as causing difficulty for several of the persons from the accusation facing, guidelines issued. Needless to say, so far as public servants in discharge of their official duties is concerned, if crime is pending against them, the superior officers can permit to leave the country and from the no objection and certification of the superiors, passport authority can issue passport or to give travel permit vide G.S.R. 34 (E), dated 12.01.2000. So far as the other persons are concerned, the Ministry of External Affairs in GSR 570E, dated 25.8.1993 as per Section 22 of the Passports Act observed that in the public interest by virtue of this notification exempting citizens of India against whom proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed pending before the Criminal Court in India, who produce orders from the Court concerned permitting them to depart from India from the operation of the provisions of Section 6 (2) (f) of the Passports Act, the passport can be permitted or travel permit as the case may be. Having regard to the above, even for the petitioner-accused since criminal case pending more than one and half year, undisputably entrusted to CID for investigation under an umbrella of the concerned Officer, concerned Court permission is required for his leaving country. Having regard to the above, surrender of the passport rather than keeping in with the erstwhile investigation officer i.e., Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kurnool, better to direct to deposit with the concerned Court or CID superior official. So that whenever any permission to leave the country applied in that court and can ask for permission to take passport and surrender back. Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered. So that whenever any permission to leave the country applied in that court and can ask for permission to take passport and surrender back. Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered. In the result, this Application is partly allowed relaxing the condition to appear before the Investigation Officer on the respective dates, to attend whenever the CID police called for the purpose of investigation subject to availability in India (leave in case where permitted to leave country by return of passport), must appear before the investigation officer of the CID concerned every month on first Saturday till the end of trial. So far as deposit of passport with DSP, Kurnool, is concerned, the same is changed to deposit with Additional Director General of Police, CID, Hyderabad. It is needless to say this order will not come in the way of exercising of any powers by the authorities concerned under the Passports Act. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed. 1. (1999) 5 SCC 694 2. (2008) 3 SCC 674 = AIR 2008 SC 1414 3. (1980) 2 SCC 565 4. AIR 2011 SC 312