The Goa bench of the Bombay High Court was startled by a decision from the lower Sessions Court regarding a peculiar bail condition. In an unconventional move, the Sessions Court had stipulated that the accused must submit their passport before being granted bail.
Lacking a passport, when the accused informed the court—corroborated by the investigative agency—the Sessions Court instructed him to obtain one.
Justice Bharat Deshpande's bench was considering a petition filed by an 18-year-old accused of attempted murder, Zakhaulla Khazi, from North Goa's Caranzalem. Khazi had been arrested in connection with the case.
Later on April 24, 2024, the Goa Sessions Court granted bail to Khazi with a condition that included the deposition of his passport. His mother notified the court that her son did not own a passport, which was not considered. Consequently, Khazi applied for modification of the bail condition regarding the passport and declared in an affidavit that he had never applied for one and thus would not be able to fulfill the bail stipulations.
The Sessions Court had sought the opinion of the investigating officer, who confirmed that Khazi had never applied for a passport. Advocate Vibhav Amonkar, representing Khazi, argued that the Additional Sessions Court should have considered the application for relaxation of the condition and at most, instructed the petitioner to deposit a passport, if one existed.
However, the trial court, in its order dated May 13, 2024, stated that since the condition was imposed, the accused must comply. Amonkar further stated that by suspending the condition for four months and directing Khazi to deposit the passport within that period, a peculiar precedent was set. It implied that Khazi must first apply for and then submit a passport to the court.
Khazi was released on bail from prison while the condition was suspended for four months. Justice Deshpande agreed with Amonkar and stated that the bail condition should read as "to deposit the passport, if any." Which means if the accused previously owned a passport, only then would it need to be submitted—not that it had to be acquired promptly.
While imposing the bail condition, Justice Deshpande remarked that the trial court does not have the authority to direct an individual to apply for a passport, obtain it, and then surrender it. Instructions to submit a passport can only be given if the accused already possesses one. The bench highlighted that the Sessions Court judge overstepped their bounds with the bail conditions.
