The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that mere surrender of a passport in compliance with bail conditions cannot, by itself, operate as a permanent embargo against its renewal, particularly where the accused does not seek to evade proceedings.

Justice Virinder Aggarwal held that the right to possess a passport and travel abroad forms part of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution, subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by law and by a competent court's 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 right to possess a passport and to travel abroad forms part of the personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by law and the orders of a competent Court," the Court observed.

The petitioner, Jagtar Singh, is an accused in FIR under Sections 406, 409, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 201 and 120-B IPC. He was granted regular bail by the High Court pursuant to which he surrendered his passport as a bail condition. His passport has since expired.

The petitioner moved an application before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barnala, seeking renewal of his passport and permission to travel abroad, which was declined by order dated 06.11.2025. He then filed the present petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking to quash that order.

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that he was nominated in the FIR primarily on the basis of a co-accused's disclosure statement, without substantive material directly connecting him to the alleged irregularities in the affairs of the society concerned. He submitted that the petitioner sought renewal of his passport to visit Australia, where his son, daughter-in-law, son-in-law, daughter and granddaughter reside and have been asking him to visit.

He argued that the application had been declined merely on the ground that the passport was surrendered under the bail order and that no urgency was shown, and clarified that the petitioner did not seek any alteration of his bail conditions, only limited permission to renew and use the passport subject to safeguards the Court considered appropriate.

The State, opposing the petition, submitted that the petitioner had voluntarily surrendered his passport under the bail conditions and had not shown any compelling or exceptional circumstance warranting relaxation. It submitted that the impugned order was well-reasoned and free of any illegality.

The Court noted that the relief sought was confined to renewal of the passport. It observed that the petitioner was admittedly in possession of a valid passport, surrendered pursuant to bail conditions, and that its validity expired during the pendency of proceedings. The Court held that mere surrender in compliance with a judicial direction cannot by itself operate as a permanent bar on renewal, especially where the petitioner does not seek to evade the proceedings or dilute his bail conditions.

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the criminal proceedings, the Court 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 is to forthwith deposit it before the Trial Court, whereafter it will remain subject to the orders and conditions governing him during the pendency of proceedings.

Case Title: Jagtar Singh v. State of Punjab

Counsel: P.S. Dhaliwal for the petitioner; Hemant Aggarwal, DAG, Punjab

Click here to read order