A criminal case casts a long administrative shadow: look-out circulars, surrendered passports, impounding memos — restraints that often persist by default long after the judicial orders behind them have run their course. In CWJC No. 7538 of 2025, decided on 21 September 2026, Justice Rajiv Roy of the Patna High Court confronted such a shadow. A passport impounded in March 2022, in the wake of anticipatory bail rejections, remained withheld years after the Supreme Court had granted the petitioner bail — with the passport office suggesting an acquittal order be produced. The Court set the impounding aside and ordered release of the passport forthwith.
The chronology that decided the case
The court’s reasoning
Justice Rajiv Roy identified the vice as administrative “inertia”: the respondents simply failed to take a proper decision once the judicial landscape changed. The impounding traced its authority to orders made in the anticipatory-bail phase; when the Supreme Court granted relief and the coordinate bench closed the file, no court order any longer authorised withholding the passport. The passport office’s suggestion that the petitioner produce an acquittal order was rejected as “preposterous” — trial pendency is not a statutory ground for indefinite retention, and the burden was on the authority to identify a live basis, not on the citizen to prove terminal innocence.
The order preserves the State’s legitimate interests: release was directed “if nothing adverse remained on record”, and travel by an accused person remains subject to whatever conditions the criminal court imposes. What the judgment forbids is restraint by default — a seizure surviving on paper after its foundation has gone.
The framework for passports and pending cases
| Instrument | Source | Discipline |
|---|---|---|
| Impounding | S. 10(3) Passports Act, 1967 | Requires a specified statutory ground, a reasoned order, and hearing; open to challenge in writ jurisdiction |
| Surrender / deposit as bail condition | Bail order (S. 482/483 BNSS) | Operates only as long as the condition subsists; modification lies to the court that imposed it |
| Look-out circular | Executive memoranda | Must be reviewed periodically; cannot outlive its purpose, particularly where the accused was never arrested or is on bail |
| Permission to travel abroad | Criminal court’s leave | Standard route for undertrials — itinerary disclosed, conditions imposed, returns verified |
Practice pointers
Restraints of this kind are dismantled by chronology, and counsel should build the file accordingly: the order that created the restraint, the subsequent orders that dissolved its basis, the representations made to the authority, and the authority’s non-response. A representation followed by a writ petition — as here — remains the standard route where the passport office declines to act. Accused persons in Delhi face the same pattern with LOCs and impounded passports; the operative lesson is to seek formal closure of every restraint at the moment the enabling order lapses, rather than discovering the residue at the airport counter.
Core holding: an impounding that has lost its foundational order cannot be sustained by inertia, and a demand for an acquittal order as the price of release inverts the citizen’s rights under the Passports Act.
This article is for general information only and is not legal advice. Passport and LOC issues intersect with bail conditions and require review of the specific orders in each case.
Frequently Asked Questions
How did the passport come to be impounded?
The petitioner faced a 2019 criminal case under Sections 406, 426 and 120B IPC. His anticipatory bail was rejected by the High Court in December 2021 and January 2022, and a direction issued to the police superintendent regarding cancellation of his passport. On police request, the Regional Passport Office impounded the passport by memo of 3 March 2022.
What changed after the impounding?
The Supreme Court, in SLP (Crl.) No. 5617/2022, granted the petitioner bail on 26 September 2023, and the High Court consigned the connected matter in November 2023. From that point, no subsisting court order authorised the passport’s continued retention.
Why did the High Court call the authorities’ stand preposterous?
Because the passport office effectively demanded proof of acquittal before releasing the document. The Court held that once the foundation of the impounding disappeared — bail granted, the file closed — insisting on an acquittal order inverted the legal position; pendency of trial by itself did not sustain the seizure.
Can a person facing trial ordinarily hold a passport?
Yes, subject to the Passports Act framework. Impounding under Section 10(3) requires a live statutory ground and a reasoned order; criminal-case pendency may justify conditions — such as permission requirements for travel imposed by the criminal court — but not indefinite administrative retention without an order that supports it.