The High Court of Punjab and Haryana clarified that the surrender of a passport pursuant to bail conditions does not operate as a permanent embargo on its renewal, affirming that the right to travel abroad forms part of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution and may be exercised subject to judicial safeguards.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Jagtar Singh, sought renewal of his expired passport and permission to travel abroad while criminal proceedings under FIR No. 20/2022 (Sections 406, 409, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 201 and 120-B IPC) were pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barnala. The impugned order dated 06.11.2025 had declined his application on the ground that his passport had been surrendered pursuant to bail conditions and that no urgency was disclosed.
Key Facts
- FIR No. 20 dated 24.02.2022 was registered at Police Station Barnala, District Barnala, alleging offences under multiple sections of the IPC.
- The petitioner was granted regular bail by the High Court vide order dated 01.02.2023 in CRM-M-47203-2022, and in compliance with the bail conditions he surrendered his passport.
- During the pendency of the criminal proceedings the validity of the surrendered passport expired, prompting the petitioner to seek its renewal to visit his family residing in Australia.
- The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barnala, passed the impugned order on 06.11.2025 refusing the passport renewal application.
- The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was filed challenging the said order.
- The High Court pronounced its decision on 17.09.2026.
Procedural History
- 24.02.2022: Registration of FIR No. 20/2022 at Barnala Police Station.
- 01.02.2023: Grant of regular bail by the High Court (CRM-M-47203-2022) with direction to surrender passport.
- 06.11.2025: Impugned order of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barnala, denying passport renewal.
- 17.09.2026: Judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana allowing the petition and issuing directions for passport renewal.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the impugned order dated 06.11.2025, direction to the trial court to return the expired passport for renewal, and permission to use the renewed passport subject to such safeguards as the Court might deem appropriate, without altering the existing bail conditions.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the surrender of a passport under bail conditions constitutes a permanent bar to its renewal during the pendency of criminal proceedings, or whether the trial court may permit limited renewal for the purpose of travel abroad while preserving the integrity of the bail order and safeguarding the interests of justice.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. P.S. Dhaliwal, contended that the petitioner’s implication in the FIR was based solely on the disclosure statement of a co-accused, without any substantive incriminating material directly linking him to the alleged irregularities. It was argued that the petitioner had already complied with the bail conditions by surrendering his passport and had not demonstrated any intention to evade the proceedings. The surrender of the passport, being a condition of bail, could not be stretched into a perpetual prohibition on its renewal, especially when the petitioner sought only limited permission to renew and use the passport for genuine family visits, subject to any safeguards the Court might impose. Reliance was placed on the principle that the right to travel abroad is a facet of personal liberty under Article 21, which may be restricted only by reasonable and proportionate conditions.
For the Respondent
Mr. Hemant Aggarwal, DAG, appearing for the State of Punjab, submitted that the petitioner had voluntarily surrendered his passport in compliance with the bail order and had not shown any compelling or exceptional circumstance warranting relaxation of that condition. The impugned order was described as well-reasoned and free from illegality or material infirmity. The State urged dismissal of the petition, maintaining that the trial court’s refusal to renew the passport was a legitimate exercise of its authority to ensure the petitioner’s availability for trial and to prevent any dilution of the bail conditions.
The Court's Analysis
The Court began by noting that the relief sought was confined to the renewal of the petitioner’s expired passport, and that the petitioner admittedly possessed a valid passport which had been surrendered pursuant to the bail conditions imposed on 01.02.2023. It observed that the mere surrender of a passport in compliance with a judicial direction cannot, by itself, operate as a permanent embargo against its renewal, particularly when the petitioner does not seek to evade the pending proceedings or dilute the conditions governing his bail. The Court emphasized that the right to possess a passport and to travel abroad forms part of the personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by law and the orders of a competent Court.
In reaching its conclusion, the Court relied on the inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of process and to secure the ends of justice. It held that the trial court, while being mindful of the bail conditions, could facilitate the limited purpose of passport renewal without compromising the integrity of the criminal proceedings. The Court directed that upon issuance of the renewed passport, the petitioner must forthwith deposit the same before the trial court, whereafter it would remain subject to the existing bail conditions and any further orders.
"Mere surrender of the passport in compliance with a judicial direction cannot, by itself, operate as a permanent embargo against its renewal, particularly when the petitioner does not seek to evade the pending proceedings or dilute the conditions governing his bail."
The Court further clarified that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the underlying criminal proceedings, and that its order was limited to the narrow sphere of passport renewal. It also directed that any pending miscellaneous applications arising from the principal proceedings would stand disposed of as infructuous upon the final adjudication of the main case.
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded. The High Court allowed the petition under Section 482 CrPC, set aside the impugned order dated 06.11.2025, and directed the Trial Court to return the expired passport to the petitioner for the limited purpose of producing it before the Regional Passport Office and applying for renewal. Upon issuance of the renewed passport, the petitioner shall forthwith deposit it before the Trial Court, whereafter the same shall remain subject to the orders and conditions governing the petitioner during the pendency of the proceedings. No monetary relief or costs were awarded.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Passport Renewal Not Barred by Bail Surrender
Practitioners may now argue that the surrender of a passport as a bail condition does not create an absolute bar to its renewal during criminal proceedings. The right to travel abroad under Article 21 can be exercised subject to judicial oversight, and trial courts are empowered to facilitate limited renewal where the applicant shows no intent to evade justice.
Limited Permission Subject to Safeguards
The judgment establishes that any grant of passport renewal must be coupled with conditions ensuring the renewed passport is deposited with the trial court and remains subject to the existing bail order. This safeguard balances personal liberty with the State’s interest in securing the accused’s presence for trial.
Judicial Discretion in Ancillary Matters
The Court’s use of Section 482 CrPC to pass directions for passport renewal underscores the broad inherent powers of the High Court to prevent injustice in ancillary matters, even while refraining from commenting on the merits of the underlying criminal case.
