Allowing travel court's prerogative: Special Court orders return of passport to public official facing corruption charges

A Special Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) Court recently allowed a Central government employee’s plea seeking the release of his passport after stating that like any other citizen, the applicant too is entitled to the travel document [CBI v. Anand Joshi]..Special CBI Judge Vishal Gogne felt “favourably inclined” to the plea of the public servant facing corruption and criminal conspiracy charges, and released the passport after noting that he could still be restrained from travelling abroad subject to the Court's permission..“The applicant, like any other citizen, is entitled to a passport/renewal of the same/use of the same for travel. Such rights can be regulated in terms of the order from a Court where the accused is facing trial and a necessity is felt for regulating either the possession of the passport or its use for travel,” the order stated. .The applicant’s counsel submitted that being a public servant and having been reinstated to government service in the Union Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, his client would be required to travel abroad in the future. On June 7, 2016, the applicant was granted bail in the case against him and subsequently the investigating agency, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), had filed a closure report. The counsel, therefore, argued that there was no use of keeping his client’s passport in the custody of the investigating officer..The CBI invoked Section 120B (punishment of criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 13(2) & 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act in the case..The public prosecutor representing the CBI opposed the plea arguing that the applicant’s passport was deposited with the agency on the Court’s directions, and should remain in the custody of the Investigation Officer (IO).The CBI informed that following the closure report, the Court had directed further investigation and the applicant had not been exonerated in the case..After considering submissions, the Court was of the opinion that merely depositing the passport with the IO did not ensure the appearance of the accused before the IO or in Court.“It is rather the directions/restrictions with respect to travelling abroad which ensure that an applicant does not leave the country without liberty being granted by the Court," the Court said. .The retention of the passport with the IO was stated to be an “unnecessary constraint on the allied rights” of the applicant that included renewal of the passports upon requirement.“It does also weigh with the Court that while the CBI has thus far only filed a closure report, the passports have continued to be retained by the IO for the last six years. The passports must return to the custody of the holder — the applicant. The application is allowed,” the order said..Advocate Manoj Kumar appeared for the applicant while advocate Ramneek Jawa represented the CBI..[Read Order]