1 WP 2179.09.sxw JPP IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2179 OF 2009 Mr. Iqbal Mohan Mehra. ... Petitioner. V/s. The Deputy Director Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Mumbai – 400 020 and Ors. ... Respondents. Mr. Niteen Pradhan for the Petitioner. Mr. S.S. Pednekar, APP for the State. CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATED : 09th SEPTEMBER 2011. P.C. :- Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner. 2. The Petitioner was arrested by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence for fraudulent availment of duty drawback and DEPB Credit through over-valuation of export products by certain firms operated by him. He was arrested and in one of the Application seeking bail, the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 3rd Court, Esplanade, Mumbai, on 22.12.2000 directed the Accused – Applicant to be released on furnishing P.R. Bond of Rs.5,00,000/- with surety of Rs.2,00,000/-. The Accused – Applicant was directed to attend Office of DRI Mumbai for a period of 30 days. He 2 WP 2179.09.sxw was restrained not to leave jurisdiction of Mumbai and India without prior permission of the Court. 3. The learned Counsel for the Applicant submits, in the light of very stringent condition in the bail order it is imperative that whenever the Applicant desires to move either out of Mumbai or abroad, he has to take permission of the concerned Court or of this Court. However, for that purpose, according to the learned Counsel, retaining his pass- post is not imperative. The authorities have for no sufficient reasons retained the passport of the Applicant. The learned Counsel has placed reliance to the Judgement of Apex Couort in the matter of Suresh Nanda V/s. Central Bureau of Investigation 2008(3) SCC 674. Wherein, the Apex Court has observed the Pass-port Act itself is a complete code in relation to impounding of the passport and even a Court exercising powers under Section 104 of the Cr.P.C. has no authority, power or jurisdiction to impound a passport. 4. The tenor of the order and the affidavit in reply illustrate, presence of the Applicant in Mumbai need not be apprehended since the bail condition itself mandates him to seek prior permission before leaving Mumbai or for abroad. It would be essential and mandatory for the Applicant to apply as stated above. In this situation of the facts, retaining passport of the Applicant, in the matters in which there is no progress is of no consequence and it would be causing harassment to the Applicant. 3 WP 2179.09.sxw 5. In the result, the application allowed. The authorities – Respondent to return the passport to the Applicant within 30 days from today. However, it is again clarified for leaving abroad or out of Mumbai, as stated above, the Applicant will have to take prior permission. (K.U. CHANDIWAL,J.)