The Petitioner, accused in an FIR for serious offenses, was granted bail by the Additional Sessions Court with several conditions, including the deposit of a passport, which he does not possess. Despite providing proof of not having a passport, the court insisted on this condition. The Petitioner sought modification of this condition, which was initially dismissed. The higher court reviewed and quashed the initial decision, modifying the condition to deposit a passport only if he possesses one.

1. Introduction

• Rule Made Returnable Forthwith: The matter is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage with consent from both parties.

2. Representation and Argument

• Petitioner's Counsel: Mr. Amonkar appears for the Petitioner.
• Public Prosecutor: Mr. Bhobe represents the State.

3. Background

• Case Details: The Petitioner is accused under FIR No. 20/2024 at Agassaim Police Station for offenses under Sections 307, 504, 506(ii) read with Section 34 of the IPC.
• Arrest and Bail: Arrested on 03.04.2024, the Petitioner applied for bail, which was granted on 23.04.2024 with specific conditions.

4. Bail Conditions

• Conditions Imposed: Reporting to the Investigating Officer, not leaving the country without permission, avoiding the Complainant's vicinity, and not threatening witnesses.
• Passport Condition: Condition no. 3 required the Petitioner to deposit his passport.

5. Issue with Passport Condition

• Non-possession of Passport: The Petitioner does not possess a passport and has never applied for one. This was communicated to the court but not considered.

6. Application for Modification

• Request for Modification: The Petitioner filed for modification of condition no. 3, supported by an affidavit and confirmation from the Investigating Officer that he has no passport.

7. Trial Court's Decision

• Impugned Order: The Additional Sessions Court suspended the passport condition for four months but still directed the Petitioner to deposit a passport within that time.

8. Argument Against the Order

• Petitioner's Argument: Mr. Amonkar argued that the court’s direction effectively required the Petitioner to apply for and obtain a passport, which it does not have the authority to mandate.

9. Higher Court's Ruling

• Quashing the Order: The higher court found the condition and the failure to modify it inappropriate, overstepping the court's powers.
• Modification: The condition is modified to: “The Applicant to deposit the passport, if any.”

10. Conclusion

• Final Decision: The impugned order is quashed, and the Petitioner's bail condition no. 3 is modified accordingly.
• Petitioner Released on Bail: Following the suspension of the original condition, the Petitioner has already been released on bail.
• Rule Made Absolute: The rule is made absolute in the revised terms.