Trial Court Can't Order Impounding Of Passport As A Condition For Granting Bail: Madras High Court

Justice P Dhanabal held that under Section 109 of the BNSS (Section 104 of the CrPC), the court had power to impound any document, but not the passport. The court observed that the power to impound passport was only with the passport authorities under Section 10(3) of the Passport Act.

The court added that the power to impound passport was provided under Section 10(3) of the Passports Act. The court observed that the Passport Act was a special law while the criminal procedure was a general law and thus the special law would prevail over the general law. The court thus concluded that, as far as the passport is concerned, the passport authorities alone could impound the passport and the trial court cannot impose such a condition to deposit the passport.

“The Passports Act is a special law while the Cr.P.C. is a general law. Therefore impounding of a passport cannot be done by the Court under Section 104 Cr.P.C. though it can impound any other document or thing. It is well settled that the special law prevails over the general law. So far as passport is concerned the passport authorities alone can impound passport and the trial Court while granting bail cannot impose such a condition to deposit the passport. If at all the Court wants to impound passport the same can be done through the concerned authorities,” the court observed.

The court was hearing a petition filed by Raja challenging an order of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tiruchirapalli imposing conditions on him, one of which was to impound his passport before the jurisdictional magistrate court.

The petitioner argued that a false case was lodged against him, based on a complaint, for offences under Sections 294(b), 417, and 506(i) of the IPC. The petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on December 23, 2025. Later, the petitioner approached the Sessions court seeking bail, and he was granted bail on January 10, 2026. He later filed another petition before the Sessions court to relax bail conditions.

While disposing the petition, the court modified the condition and directed the petition not to leave India without prior permission from the concerned court. The petitioner was also directed to surrender his passport to the jurisdictional Magistrate's court. The petitioner was also asked to appear and sign before the police station once every Monday. These three bail conditions were challenged by the petitioner in the present plea.

The petitioner argued that surrendering the passport was in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution and sessions court had no right to impound the passport. It was argued that under the Passport Act, the competent authority was the passport authority and thus the condition imposed by the Sessions Court was liable to be set aside.

The State, on the other hand, argued that the Sessions Court had directed the surrender of the passport, considering the gravity of the offence, to secure the presence of the petitioner before the Sessions Court.

After hearing the parties, the court observed that only the passport authority was competent to impound passport and the court could not have imposed such a condition. Thus, noting that the condition to surrender the passport was not in accordance with the law, the court set aside the condition. The court made it clear that all other conditions would remain intact.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. G. Karuppasamy Pandian

Counsel for Respondent: Mr. M. Karunanidhi Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

Case Title: Raja v The Inspector of Police

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 162

Case No: CRL OP(MD). No.6022 of 2026