High Court Orders Return of Passport for Departure

The High Court directed respondent no. 2 to return the petitioner's passport within a fortnight to facilitate his departure from India, emphasizing that there was no valid reason to continue withholding the passport. The Court rejected the argument that returning the passport would result in the petitioner fleeing the country, as there were no other pending prosecutions against him and highlighted potential visa validity issues due to his prolonged stay in India.

---

---

Issues:
1. Petitioner seeking the return of his passport from respondent no. 2.
2. Dispute over the surrender of the passport and the petitioner's ability to leave India.
3. Allegations of the petitioner fleeing the country if the passport is returned.
4. Duration of the petitioner's stay in India and visa validity.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, a Malaysian national, filed a writ petition seeking the return of his passport, which was confiscated by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) after he was found carrying a canister containing human embryos upon landing in Mumbai on March 15, 2019. The petitioner was arrested under the Customs Act, and an adjudication case was initiated against him, resulting in a penalty of Rs. 3,50,000 imposed on him, which he paid in full on September 11, 2020. Despite payment, the passport was not returned, preventing his return to Malaysia.

2. The respondents claimed that the petitioner voluntarily surrendered his passport in connection with the seizure of the human embryos. However, the petitioner disputed this claim, alleging that repeated requests for the return of his passport were ignored. A previous judgment expressed concerns about the petitioner fleeing the country if his passport was returned, affecting the adjudication case.

3. The High Court rejected the respondent's argument that returning the passport would lead to the petitioner fleeing the country. The petitioner's counsel argued that the passport was needed for him to leave India, which was his intention. The Court confirmed that no other prosecutions were pending against the petitioner under different laws, removing the basis for withholding the passport.

4. Additionally, considering the petitioner had been in India for nearly four years, the Court highlighted the potential visa validity issues and the risk of overstaying leading to punishable offenses. Therefore, the Court directed respondent no. 2 to return the petitioner's passport within a fortnight to facilitate his departure from the country, emphasizing that there was no valid reason to continue withholding the passport.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues, arguments, and the final decision of the High Court regarding the return of the petitioner's passport.

---