The Telangana High Court has clarified that bail conditions imposing complete forfeiture of a passport may be relaxed where the accused demonstrates a compelling, time-bound employment necessity abroad, provided adequate safeguards are imposed. This ruling reinforces the principle that restrictions on personal liberty must be proportionate and not punitive.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Mohammed Wajeed, an engineer employed in Saudi Arabia, was arrayed as Accused No. 1 in Criminal Case No. 12033 of 2025 before the XV Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad, for offences under Sections 498-A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The allegations relate to alleged dowry harassment and criminal breach of trust by the petitioner against his wife, Respondent No. 2, Mrs. Seema Ahmed.
Key Facts
- The petitioner was residing in Saudi Arabia for employment since before the filing of the criminal case
- He was unaware of the issuance of a Non-Bailable Warrant against him due to his prolonged stay abroad
- He returned to India on 03.01.2026 and was immediately arrested by the WPS (CCS) DD Police Station, Hyderabad
- He was remanded to judicial custody and later released on bail on 16.01.2026
- The bail order dated 16.01.2026 imposed two conditions: (i) deposit of passport with the trial court; (ii) no departure from India without prior court permission
- On 23.03.2026, the trial court dismissed the petitioner’s application (Crl. M.P. No. 154 of 2026) seeking interim custody of his passport to fulfill employment obligations in Saudi Arabia
- The petitioner holds a valid Electronic Exit Re-Entry Visa (Single) requiring his return to Saudi Arabia on or before 02.04.2026
- His Saudi visa is valid until 26.07.2026; failure to return by 02.04.2026 will result in a three-year ban on visa renewal
- The petitioner submitted documentary proof of his employment and visa conditions
Procedural History
- 2025: Criminal Case No. 12033 of 2025 registered for offences under IPC 498-A, 406 and DP Act 4, 6
- Prior to 03.01.2026: Petitioner residing in Saudi Arabia; unaware of NBW issuance
- 03.01.2026: Petitioner arrested upon return to India
- 16.01.2026: Trial Court granted bail subject to deposit of passport and no exit from India without permission
- 23.03.2026: Trial Court dismissed Crl. M.P. No. 154 of 2026 seeking interim custody of passport
- 01.04.2026: Criminal Petition No. 4653 of 2026 filed under Section 528 of BNSS before the Telangana High Court
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought: (i) setting aside the trial court’s order dated 23.03.2026; (ii) interim custody of his passport (No. C9373928); (iii) relaxation of the condition prohibiting departure from India without permission, to enable him to return to Saudi Arabia by 02.04.2026.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a court may relax the condition of passport deposit imposed during bail under Section 480 of the BNSS, where the accused demonstrates a time-bound, legitimate employment necessity abroad, and is willing to accept alternative safeguards to ensure return and appearance.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner’s absence from India was not willful or evasive, as he was unaware of the NBW due to his overseas employment. He submitted that the petitioner’s employment contract in Saudi Arabia required his return by 02.04.2026, and failure to comply would result in a three-year ban on re-entry. He emphasized the petitioner’s willingness to comply with any additional conditions, including furnishing surety and submitting travel details. He relied on the principle of proportionality in bail conditions and the right to livelihood under Article 21.
For the Respondent
Learned counsel for Respondent No. 2 contended that the petitioner had repeatedly filed applications to evade judicial process, having failed to appear despite summons and a Non-Bailable Warrant. He argued that the petitioner’s request was a tactic to delay proceedings, especially given the pending domestic violence and maintenance claims. He submitted that the trial court’s refusal was justified to prevent flight risk and ensure accountability.
The Court's Analysis
The Court observed that the petitioner’s absence from India was not motivated by an intent to evade justice, but by legitimate employment obligations. The Court noted that the petitioner had surrendered upon return and cooperated with the judicial process by seeking bail and filing applications in good faith. The Court emphasized that while the gravity of the offences under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC is significant, the condition of passport deposit must be balanced against the accused’s right to livelihood and the principle of proportionality.
"The condition of depositing the passport is not an absolute bar but a precautionary measure to ensure appearance. Where the accused demonstrates a compelling, time-bound necessity to travel abroad for employment, and is willing to accept stringent conditions to ensure return, the court may exercise its discretion to relax such condition."
The Court rejected the contention that repeated applications indicate mala fide, noting that the petitioner’s applications were tied to a specific, time-sensitive event - the expiry of his visa window. The Court also acknowledged the petitioner’s willingness to submit to additional safeguards, including surety and submission of travel and residential details.
The Court distinguished this case from those involving habitual absconders or those with no credible employment reason, holding that the petitioner’s case fell within the realm of exceptional circumstances warranting judicial flexibility.
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded. The High Court set aside the trial court’s order dated 23.03.2026 and granted interim custody of the passport (No. C9373928). The condition prohibiting departure from India without permission was relaxed, subject to the following: (i) the petitioner shall furnish surety of Rs. 4,00,000/- to the satisfaction of the XV Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad; (ii) the petitioner shall return to India within one month from the date of this order; (iii) upon return, he shall deposit his passport with the trial court within one week; (iv) he shall not leave India without prior permission of the trial court; and (v) he shall submit his travel particulars, residential address in Saudi Arabia, office address, mobile number, and email address to the trial court before departure.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Passport Deposit Is Not Absolute in Bail Conditions
- Practitioners may now argue that passport deposit under Section 480 BNSS is a precautionary, not punitive, measure
- Courts must assess whether the restriction is necessary to prevent flight risk or merely serves as a blanket imposition
- Where the accused has a verifiable, time-bound employment or medical necessity abroad, courts should consider alternatives to total passport retention
Proportionality Must Guide Judicial Discretion
- The gravity of the offence alone cannot justify disproportionate restrictions on personal liberty
- Courts must weigh the accused’s right to livelihood under Article 21 against the state’s interest in ensuring appearance
- Alternative safeguards - surety, undertaking affidavits, submission of contact details - can effectively mitigate flight risk without denying essential travel
Timeliness and Documentation Are Critical
- Accused must provide verifiable documentary proof (visa, employment letter, travel itinerary) to substantiate claims of necessity
- Failure to provide credible evidence will likely result in denial of relief
- Applications must be filed promptly upon awareness of the restriction, not as a last-minute tactic
