Restriction On Travel Without Permission From Court Cannot Be A Reason To Retain Passport: Kerala HC
The Kerala High Court held that a passport cannot be seized or retained by investigating agencies unless the seizure of such a document can be treated as ‘property’ under Section 102 of the Cr.P.C.
The petitioner's passport was seized by an Intelligence Officer of the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB), alleging involvement in an offence under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act).
The High Court considered the question as to whether a passport, mobile phone, and identity card of the petitioner can be retained by the investigating agency during the course of an investigation.
A Single Bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas observed, “The passport of an individual is an important document and is issued under the provisions of the Passports Act, 1967…A passport cannot be seized or retained by the investigating agencies. The seizure of a document, if it can be treated as a property, has to be under section 102 of the Cr.P.C and the conditions stipulated therein ought to be satisfied. A document is generally subjected to impounding under section 104 Cr.P.C and this can only be done by the Court.”
Advocate V.V. Joy represented the petitioner, while PP V. Sreeja appeared for the respondents.
Despite filing an application for interim custody of the passport under Section 451 of the CrPC, his request was dismissed. The petitioner was interrogated and arrested in a case involving the receipt of 3.500 kgs of hashish oil in a parcel, addressed to him, received at a Cargo office. After the petitioner was released on bail, he filed an application for the release of his passport, ID card, and mobile phone, but the Sessions Court denied the request after observing the bail conditions and potential misuse.
The High Court held that “there was no condition directing the deposit of the passport with the court or with the investigating officer. Therefore, the passport seized from the petitioner is not subject to any condition for retention with the second respondent, even in the order granting bail.”
The Court clarified that a document is generally subjected to impounding under Section 104 of the Cr.P.C and it can only be done by a Court.
The Court remarked that there was no justification for retaining the mobile phone of the petitioner. If the mobile phone was required to be subjected to forensic analysis, the same should have been done by now. The Court ordered the immediate return of both the mobile phone and the petitioner's identity card, as they had no use in the ongoing investigation.
Accordingly, the High Court set aside the order of the Sessions Court and allowed the petition.
Cause Title: Davood v. State of Kerala & Anr. (2024:KER:5082)
