Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Chennupati Kranthi Kumar, is accused no.1 in a prosecution for offences under Sections 498A, 403, and 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, arising from a matrimonial dispute with his wife, the 4th respondent. During investigation, the police issued a notice under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, calling upon the appellant to produce his passport. The appellant complied, and the police forwarded the passport to the 3rd respondent, the Regional Passport Office at Hyderabad. The appellant, who works in the USA and had come to India for his father's death anniversary rituals, applied to the II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-Mahila Magistrate, Vijayawada, for return of his passport, asserting his fundamental right to travel abroad. The magistrate dismissed the application, and the High Court of Andhra Pradesh upheld that order. The Supreme Court considered whether the passport should be returned. The appellant argued that the passport was deposited voluntarily and that he needed it to return to his employment in the USA. The respondents opposed, citing the need to secure the appellant's presence at trial. The Supreme Court held that the right to travel abroad is a fundamental right under Article 21, but it is subject to reasonable restrictions. The court noted that the passport was deposited under Section 91 CrPC, which does not authorize indefinite retention. The court allowed the appeal, directing the return of the passport subject to conditions: the appellant must furnish a bond of Rs. 5 lakhs with two sureties, report to the investigating officer every month, and provide his contact details and address in the USA. The court also directed the trial court to expedite the trial.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Passport Return - Right to Travel - The court considered whether an accused person is entitled to the return of his passport deposited during investigation, balancing the right to travel under Article 21 with the need to secure the accused's presence at trial. Held that the passport must be returned subject to conditions ensuring the appellant's availability for trial, such as furnishing a bond and reporting to the police station. (Paras 1-10) B) Criminal Procedure - Section 91 CrPC - Production of Documents - Section 91 CrPC empowers a court or police officer to issue a notice to produce a document or thing, but does not authorize indefinite retention of the passport after the purpose is served. The passport must be returned once the investigation is complete or the court so directs. (Paras 2-5) C) Constitutional Law - Article 21 - Right to Travel - The right to travel abroad is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, but it is subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by law, including conditions imposed by a criminal court to secure the presence of the accused. (Paras 6-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant is entitled to the return of his passport which was deposited with the police during investigation, and if so, on what conditions.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the orders of the High Court and the Magistrate, and directed the 3rd respondent to return the appellant's passport within two weeks, subject to the appellant furnishing a bond of Rs. 5 lakhs with two sureties, reporting to the investigating officer every month, and providing his contact details and address in the USA. The trial court was directed to expedite the trial.
Law Points
- Right to travel abroad is a fundamental right under Article 21
- Passport cannot be retained indefinitely without court order
- Criminal court can impose conditions for return of passport
- Section 91 CrPC does not authorize indefinite retention of passport
