:1: IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2 OF 2009 APPLICATION NO. 2 OF 2009 APPLICATION NO. 2 OF 2009 IN IN IN CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4264 OF 2006 APPLICATION NO. 4264 OF 2006 APPLICATION NO. 4264 OF 2006 Mr. Kuresh T. Rajkotwala. ... Applicant. V/s. Union of India and Anr. ... Respondents. Mr. A.H.H. Ponda for the Applicant. Ms. A.S. Pai for the Respondents. ..... CORAM CORAM CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. 17TH 17TH 17TH APRIL 2009. APRIL 2009. APRIL 2009. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : . Heard both sides. This is an application for modification of the order passed on a Bail Application preferred by the Applicant. My order dated 1st December 2006 imposed several conditions on the Applicant, one of them being that his passport will be deposited by him as a condition precedent with the Intelligence Officer of DRI, Mumbai. 2. That condition is sought to be modified by the Applicant and the Application for modification was earlier placed before a learned Single Judge, who directed the Registry to obtain appropriate directions from the Hon’ble the Chief Justice for placing this application before me. After such directions were sought and granted, the Application is placed before me. :2: 3. I have heard Mr. Ponda, learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant and Ms. Pai, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents. I have perused the application and the judgment relied upon by Mr. Ponda. I have also perused the affidavit in reply. 4. The law laid down is clear. In a case of bailable offence, it would not be open for the Magistrate to insist upon the Applicant surrendering or depositing his passport. That condition cannot be imposed is now the settled principle of law. This is not disputed by the Respondent either. However, it is contended that the Applicant has challenged an order of Detention under the COFEPOSA Act, before its Execution by filing a Writ petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court which is stated to be pending. In the event, the pass-port is released to the Applicant, he may not be available in case the challenge to the detention fails. and is required to be detained. 5. Such an apprehension cannot prevent the Applicant from claiming the instant relief inasmuch as the same is being claimed on the basis of the settled principles of law. Admittedly, in the Application that is before me the Applicant is accused of commission of a Bailable offence and therefore, his passport cannot be directed to be deposited as a precondition for grant of bail. However, :3: with a view to protect the interest of both sides, in my view, the following order would meet the ends of justice :- (i) In the event the Respondents do not obtain any orders from the Punjab and Haryana High Court within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, they shall release the passport of the Applicant deposited with them. (ii) In the event, any orders are passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, parties would abide by the same. 6. Application is disposed off, accordingly. (S.C. (S.C. (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J.) DHARMADHIKARI,J.) DHARMADHIKARI,J.)