The Madhya Pradesh High Court has clarified that bail conditions imposing physical compliance with impossible obligations - such as depositing a lost passport - cannot be enforced without adjustment. This ruling reinforces that bail jurisprudence must accommodate factual realities, not abstract formalities.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Salman Khan alias Salman Lala, was granted bail in a criminal case pending trial, subject to several conditions including the deposit of his passport with the trial court and prior permission to leave India. Subsequently, the petitioner lost his passport during a trip to Dubai. He returned to India using a Certificate of Lost Passport issued by Dubai Police, a copy of which was seized during investigation. He no longer possessed any valid passport and could not comply with Condition No. 6 of the bail order.
Procedural History
- 21 January 2026: Bail granted in M.Cr.C. No. 52250/2025 with Condition No. 6 requiring passport deposit and prior permission to travel abroad.
- February 2026: Petitioner filed M.Cr.C. No. 5050/2026 under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking modification of the bail condition.
- 17 February 2026: Hearing conducted before Justice Sanjeev S. Kalgaonkar.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought modification of Condition No. 6 to reflect his inability to deposit a passport he no longer possessed. He proposed that the Passport Authority be formally notified to revoke his old passport (No. V0687233) and refrain from issuing a new one without court permission, thereby demonstrating bona fides.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a bail condition requiring deposit of a passport can be enforced when the petitioner has irrevocably lost the document abroad and possesses no valid passport, and whether such a condition, if impossible to comply with, constitutes a violation justifying cancellation of bail.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Learned counsel argued that enforcing Condition No. 6 was legally untenable because compliance was factually impossible. He relied on Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar to emphasize that bail conditions must be reasonable and proportionate. He submitted that the petitioner had taken proactive steps - furnishing the lost passport certificate and offering to request revocation of the old passport - to demonstrate good faith and prevent misuse of travel documents.
For the Respondent/State
The State, through the Government Advocate, acknowledged the seizure of the lost passport certificate during investigation and conceded that the petitioner had no valid passport. The State did not oppose modification but sought assurance that the petitioner would not obtain a new passport without court approval.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the nature of bail conditions under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which permits modification of bail orders to ensure justice and prevent abuse. It held that bail conditions are not meant to be punitive or symbolic but must serve the legitimate purpose of ensuring the accused’s presence during trial and preventing flight.
"The condition requiring deposit of a passport cannot be rigidly enforced when the passport no longer exists in the possession of the accused. To insist on compliance with an impossible condition would be to punish the accused for circumstances beyond his control."
The Court noted that the petitioner had not attempted to evade the legal process. His return to India on a lost passport certificate, coupled with his willingness to have the old passport revoked, demonstrated cooperation. The Court distinguished this from cases where accused persons deliberately misplace documents to circumvent conditions. It emphasized that procedural fairness requires courts to adapt conditions to reality, not punish non-compliance arising from factual impossibility.
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded. The Court modified Condition No. 6 to require the SHO to notify the Passport Authority not to renew any passport for the petitioner without court permission. The petitioner was also barred from leaving India without trial court permission. The rest of the bail order remained unchanged.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Bail Conditions Must Be Practically Enforceable
- Practitioners must challenge bail conditions that demand physical compliance with impossible acts, such as depositing lost or destroyed documents.
- Courts are now bound to assess feasibility before imposing conditions under Section 528 BNSS.
- A petitioner’s proactive steps to neutralize risk (e.g., requesting revocation of a lost passport) should be treated as evidence of bonafides.
Passport Revocation as Alternative to Deposit
- Where a passport is lost, courts may direct authorities to block renewal rather than demand physical surrender.
- This approach balances state interest in preventing flight with the accused’s right to reasonable bail.
- Legal teams should proactively submit documentation of loss and request revocation as part of bail applications.
Non-Compliance Due to External Circumstances Is Not Breach
- Failure to comply with a bail condition due to loss, theft, or destruction of a document does not automatically constitute breach.
- The burden shifts to the prosecution to prove mala fide intent or deliberate evasion.
- Courts must distinguish between negligence and impossibility before initiating contempt or cancellation proceedings.
