Petitioner sought modification of a bail order requiring passport deposit so he could obtain a visa for a business visit to the United Kingdom. The High Court disposed of the application by granting liberty to approach the trial court for return of the passport, clarifying the deposit condition would not bind it.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010011892025
2025:GAU-AS:5390
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/65/2025
BHARGAV DEKA KAMRUP METRO, ASSAM
2: RAHAN KUMAR S/O LATE MAHESH KUMAR VILL-JARAPGANG P.S.-KORHA DIST-KATIHAR (BIHAR)
3: SATYAM YADAV S/O LATE MADAN YADAV VILL-JARAPGANG P.S.-KORHA DIST-KATIHAR (BIHAR)
4: AYAN SINGH S/O LATE ANIL SINGH VILL-GENDABARI P.S.-KORHA DIST-KATIHAR (BIHAR)
5: BINAY YADAV S/O LATE BIRENDRA YADAV VILL-DURGASTAN P.S.-KATIHAR DIST-KATIHAR (BIHAR)
6: ANISH SINGH S/O JAGGU SINGH VILL-JARAPGANG P.S.-KORHA DIST-KATIHAR (BIHAR
VERSUS
Page No.# 2/5
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : BIPASHA BORA, MR. A K BHUYAN,MR. A K BHUYAN,MR. S MUNIR,MS. S SAIKIA
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,
BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI
ORDER
Date : 02.05.2025
Heard Mr. A. K. Bhuyan, learned counsel appearing for the applicant. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam.
2. By way of this interlocutory application, the applicant is seeking modification of the order dated 12.03.2021 passed in Bail Application No. 417/2021.
3. The brief facts of the case is that the applicant after being arrested in connection with Azara P.S. Case No.624/2020 under Sections 120(B)/419/420/406 of the IPC read with Section 66(D) of the Information Technology Act, 2008 approached before this Court seeking bail in Bail Application No.417/2021 and this Court by order dated 12.03.2021 was pleased to allow the petitioner to go on bail “ of Rs. 30,000.00, with two sureties of the like amount, and one of which should be a local one, to the satisfaction of the learned CJM, Kamrup (M), with further direction to the petitioner to face the trial regularly without any default. He will submit his passport before the
Page No.# 3/5
learned trial Court at the time of execution of the bail bond and he will not leave the jurisdiction of the learned trial Court without its prior permission. Any willful default on the part of the present petitioner in the course of the trial will entail cancellation of the bail order. ”
4. Thereafter, the applicant/petitioner has accordingly as per the aforesaid direction of this Court deposited his passport before the trial Court on 15.03.2021.
5. The Investigating Officer upon completion of the investigation submitted the Charge-sheet.
6. It is worthwhile to mention that the applicant/petitioner approached before this Court in vide I.A.(Crl.) No. 462/2021 for modification of the condition at the time of granting bail as his wife resides in Delhi and he is required to be with her in connection with medical treatment. Accordingly, by order dated 28.01.2022, this Court modified/relaxed the condition imposed earlier by this Court on 12.03.2021 as under:-
7. It is the specific case of the applicant that he now intends to visit United Kingdom for business purpose and for that purpose the passport is required for obtaining visa. Accordingly, the present application has been filed.
8. Mr. A. K. Bhuyan, learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant/petitioner has all along co-operated with the
Page No.# 4/5
investigation as well as appeared on all dates fixed before the trial Court either by himself or through his legal representative as allowed by this Court earlier. He further submits that since this Court while granting bail to the applicant has imposed the condition of depositing his passport, which he has accordingly done and the same is in the custody of the trial Court, unless and until the said condition is relaxed/modified by this Court, he shall not be able to travel abroad for his business purpose.
9. Mr. B. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent submits that it is apparent from the material available on record that the petitioner has all along been appearing before the trial Court on all dates fixed either by himself or through his representatives. He further submits that the next date fixed is on 02.06.2025 for framing Charge.
10. I have given my prudent considerations to the submissions advanced by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of both the parties and also perused the material available on record.
11. It appears that the prayer for modification of this Court’s order dated 12.03.2021 is only to the effect for enabling the applicant/petitioner to visit United Kingdom for his business purpose. It appears that the petitioner/applicant has not done anything to hamper the trial till date and has duly appeared either by himself or through his legal representative as allowed by this Court earlier on all dates fixed by the trial Court till date.
12. Since the prayer made in this interlocutory application is for returning temporarily the passport of the applicant/petitioner to him in order to travel abroad, this Court is of the opinion that since the trial Court is the best Judge to take a call in this regard, it would be appropriate in the interest of justice to dispose of this interlocutory application by giving liberty to the applicant/petitioner to approach before the trial Court by filing an
Page No.# 5/5
appropriate application seeking return of his passport in order to travel abroad and in the event such an application is being filed, the trial Court shall consider the same in accordance with law and pass necessary order.
13. Ordered accordingly.
14. It is needless to be clarified that the condition as regards the deposit of the passport before the trial Court in the order dated 12.03.2021 shall not be binding upon the Court when an application for return of the passport as stated above is made and the trial Court may impose any conditions as it deems fit and proper, in the event the prayer made in the said application is allowed.
15. The interlocutory application stands allowed and is disposed of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the bail condition requiring the petitioner to deposit his passport should be relaxed to permit him to travel to the United Kingdom for business.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Bhargav Deka
The State of Assam (represented by the Public Prosecutor)
Kaushik Goswami
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
