Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1606 (TS)

Nukala Anil Yadav v. State of Telangana

2025-11-21

TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

body2025
ORDER : 1. This Criminal Petition is filed seeking to set aside the order, dated 23.10.2025, passed in Crl.M.P.No.79 of 2025 in S.C.No.295 of 2021 by the learned Senior Civil Judge-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge, Metpalli, whereby, the petition filed by the petitioners seeking return of their original passports, was dismissed. 2. Heard Sri Thelu Pratap, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the trial Court has passed an erroneous order by dismissing the petition seeking release of the passports of the petitioners and that the trial Court cannot withhold their passports. He further submitted that the petitioners were acquitted in S.C.No.295 of 2021, following which they have filed the present petition before the trial Court, under Rule 219 of the CRIMINAL RULES OF PRACTICE (for short, ‘the Rules’), seeking return of their original passports bearing Nos.S9709820 and U6152658, and the said petition was dismissed by the trial Court, which is not just and proper. Once the case ended in acquittal, the documents ought to have been returned under Rule 219 of the Rules, unless a reason is shown that the said documents are required for the purpose of appeal. Thus, the trial Court is not justified in dismissing the present petition. He, therefore, prayed to set aside the impugned order, dated 23.10.2025, and allow the Criminal Petition. 4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the trial Court has passed a reasoned order and that there is no need to interfere with the same. 5. Perused the record. 6. Since the present Crl.MP.No.79 of 2025 is filed under Rule 219 of the CRIMINAL RULES OF PRACTICE , the same is extracted hereunder for the sake of reference: “ 219. Return of documents - application to be made therefor :- Applications from parties or other persons for the return of documents filed in Court shall be made to the Court in which they were originally filed. Return of documents - application to be made therefor :- Applications from parties or other persons for the return of documents filed in Court shall be made to the Court in which they were originally filed. If application is made for any document which has been transmitted to another Court, the Court in which the document was originally filed shall itself apply for the transmission of the documents and on receipt shall return it to the applicant: Provided that no document shall be returned unless the Judge or Magistrate is satisfied that it will not be required for reference in proceedings pending either before his own Court or the Court of Appeal or Revision.” 7. Thus, a document can be withheld by the trial Court only if the document is required in the proceedings in the Court of appeal. In the present case, the passports are sought to be returned. There is no reason how would be passport, a document, to be considered by the Court of appeal. It is borne out by record that the Sessions Case ended in acquittal, as the prosecution witnesses turned hostile, pursuant to which the present petition has been filed. The trial Court is under an apprehension that appeal would be preferred by the State. There is no impediment and the State has every right to prefer an appeal, but this Court does not understand the reason assigned by the trial Court. The trial Court has emphasized on the proviso to Rule 219 of the Rules and has recorded its dissatisfaction by banking heavily upon the antecedents of the petitioners and observed that the petitioners have absconded earlier during the mid- trial and therefore, their presence may be required during pendency of the appeal and that there is every chance for the State to prefer an appeal. Therefore, till the expiry of appeal time, the trial Court was not inclined to release the passports. But that should not be the test to be applied. The proviso to Rule 219 of the Rules states that the Court should be prima facie satisfied that the document is not required during pendency of the proceedings in the appellate Court in order to return the said document. This Court does not understand the necessity of a passport to be examined during the course of proceedings in the appeal. The proviso to Rule 219 of the Rules states that the Court should be prima facie satisfied that the document is not required during pendency of the proceedings in the appellate Court in order to return the said document. This Court does not understand the necessity of a passport to be examined during the course of proceedings in the appeal. When the document is not so required for the proceedings in an appeal, there is no reason to withhold the same. It is not out of place to mention that all the witnesses before the trial Court turned hostile and there was no evidence before the trial Court and thus, it ended in acquittal. If an appeal is preferred by the State no new evidence would be produced for which the passports are required to be examined. Thus, in the circumstances, the reasons assigned by the trial Court for dismissing the petition is not at all justified. 8. Further, a co-ordinate bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.4978 of2025, dated 02.07.2025, held as under: “15. As seen from the above, Section 436(1) Cr.P.C. stipulates that when a person/accused of a bailable offence is arrested or detained without any warrant and is prepared to furnish bail, he shall be released on bail. The language of the provision is mandatory and confers an absolute and indefeasible right to bail. The only discretion vested in the Court pertains to the amount of the bond or number of sureties; it does not extend to placing restrictions on personal liberty, such as confiscating or directing the deposit of a passport or imposing travel restrictions. The learned Single Judge has discussed the decision of the Bombay High Court in Sultan Kamruddin Dharani v. Union of India , 2008 SCC OnLine Bom 1347 and that of the Honourable Apex Court in Suresh Nanda v. C.B.I. (2008) 3 SCC 674 and has allowed Crl.P.No.4978 of 2025 by setting aside the conditions imposed by the trial Court asking the petitioner therein to deposit his original passport. 9. 9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suresh Nanda ’s case (supra 2) laid down the principle that impounding of a passport is a function exclusively conferred on the Passport Authority under Section 10(3) of the Passports Act, 1967, and cannot be assumed or exercised by a criminal Court under Section 104 of Cr.P.C. The Court clarified the legal distinction between seizing and impounding, holding that impounding implies retention for a continuing period and that such retention cannot be done by Courts or police authorities without complying with the procedure established under the Passports Act. Thus, the power to impound or retain a passport lies solely with the Passport Authority, and not with the criminal Courts, even if the passport is produced before them during proceedings. In the present case, it is not the case of the prosecution that any steps have been initiated under the Passports Act for impounding the passport of the petitioner. Instead, the trial Court imposed a blanket restriction through a bail condition, thereby exceeding its jurisdiction and infringing upon the personal liberty of the petitioner. 10. Thus, in view of the statutory position and the decision of the Honourable Apex Court in Suresh Nanda ’s case (supra 2) with regard to impounding of passport, it is held that the passport cannot be impounded by any other authority, but for passport authority of India. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the trial Court is erroneous. The trial Court ought to have allowed the petition and returned the passports of the petitioners. The trial Court has no authority to retain the passports of the petitioners. Hence, the order, dated 23.10.2025, is liable to be set aside. 11. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the order, dated 23.10.2025, passed in Crl.M.P.No.79 of 2025 in S.C.No.295 of 2021 by the learned Senior Civil Judge-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge, Metpalli, is set aside and the trial Court is directed to return the passports to the petitioners. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.