Passport retention as a bail condition cannot operate as indirect impounding; return directed with advance travel disclosure.

A bail condition requiring deposit and retention of the applicant's passport, together with prior permission before leaving India, was treated as onerous because a passport was not an incriminating document in the prosecution case and permanent retention would amount in substance to indirect impounding. The Passports Act, 1967 was treated as the special law governing impounding and retention of passports, so such restriction could not be sustained through a general bail condition under criminal procedure. On the same reasoning applied in an earlier order, the condition was deleted, the order was set aside, the passport was directed to be returned, and advance disclosure of future travel itinerary was required.

---

---

Issues: Whether the bail condition requiring the applicant to deposit his passport and obtain prior permission before leaving India was onerous and liable to be deleted, and whether the passport was liable to be returned with travel disclosure obligations.

Analysis: The condition was treated as onerous because a passport is not an incriminating document in the prosecution case and permanent retention of the passport would, in substance, amount to indirect impounding. The Passports Act, 1967 was treated as a special law governing impounding and retention of passports, and the Court held that such retention could not be sustained through a bail condition under the general criminal procedure. The prior order relied upon the same reasoning, and the applicant was found to be similarly placed.

Conclusion: The condition requiring deposit and retention of the passport was deleted, the impugned order was set aside, and the passport was directed to be returned, while the applicant was required to furnish travel itinerary details in advance for future foreign .

---