Applicant sought modification of a bail condition requiring passport deposit with the trial court for business travel abroad. The court declined to waive the condition but allowed temporary release of the passport on application to the trial court for specific trips, subject to re-deposit after travel.
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.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 578/2025
IN
S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.137/2025
Prashant Kumar S/o Shriniwas, aged about 36 Years, R/o Shobhawaton Ki Dhani, Makan No. 10, Pal Road, Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ravi Kant Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN
Order
11/11/2025
This criminal miscellaneous application has been filed by the applicant for modification/waiving of the condition imposed by the order dated 07.03.2025, whereby the applicant was directed to deposit his passport with the trial court.
The applicant, through his counsel, has contended that he is engaged in business activities and therefore, frequently travels abroad. It is argued that the retention of his passport by the court is causing inconvenience and adversely affecting his business operations. Hence, the applicant has prayed that the condition imposed by order dated 07.03.2025 for depositing passport with the trial court may be withdrawn and his passport may be returned to him on permanent basis.
[CRLMA-578/2025]
(2 of 3)
Upon a careful examination of the case record, it is evident that the direction requiring the deposit of the applicant’s passport was issued by this Court after due consideration of all relevant facts, including the nature of allegations, stage of the court proceedings, and the need to ensure that the applicant remains available for the trial. The said condition was, therefore, imposed as a measure to secure presence of the applicant. In these circumstances, mere assertion that the applicant needs to travel abroad for business purposes does not, by itself, constitute sufficient grounds for the removal of the said condition altogether. The Court must balance the applicant’s personal and professional interests with the necessity of ensuring that the legal process may not be hindered or frustrated by his absence from the jurisdiction. Nevertheless, the court recognizes that there may arise bona fide and legitimate circumstances necessitating the applicant’s temporary travel abroad. Thus, it is observed that if, in future, the applicant requires to undertake any specific foreign trip for justifiable and necessary reasons, he may file an appropriate application before the trial court seeking permission for such travel. Upon receiving such an application, the trial court shall examine the request on its own merits, taking into account the applicant’s need, supporting documentation, and the relevant legal principles as well as the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the High Courts from time to time. If the trial court is satisfied that the reasons for travel are genuine and that sufficient safeguards can be imposed to ensure the applicant’s return, the court may pass an appropriate order permitting travel for a specified period. In such an event, the applicant’s passport
[CRLMA-578/2025]
(3 of 3)
may be released temporarily, subject to the condition that immediately upon completion of the approved travel, the applicant shall re-deposit the passport with the trial court without any delay. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present criminal miscellaneous application stands disposed of.
(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J
GAUTAM JAIN /2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the condition of depositing the applicant's passport with the trial court should be waived to permit business travel abroad?
Prashant Kumar
The State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
Anil Kumar Upman
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
