Idol Demolition Case: Punjab and Haryana High Court Sets Aside Passport Surrender Condition

The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently set aside a condition requiring accused persons to deposit their passports while granting anticipatory bail in a case that arose from allegations that a religious foundation and idols of Lord Shiva and his family were demolished in broad daylight, allegedly hurting the religious sentiments of residents in the locality.

The bench of Justice Sumeet Goel was hearing a revision petition filed by Ram Lubhaya and others, who had approached the High Court challenging a condition imposed by a Jalandhar sessions court while granting them anticipatory bail. The sessions court, in its November 22, 2019 order, had directed the accused to deposit their passports before the trial magistrate.

A private complaint was filed by a local resident alleging that on November 17, 2018, the accused persons, acting in concert, demolished a religious platform along with idols of Lord Shiva and his family in broad daylight. The complainant alleged that the act was intended to hurt religious sentiments and that the incident was videographed.

According to the complaint, despite approaching the police, no FIR was registered. Instead, the complainant alleged that he was pressured to compromise. He further accused the alleged offenders of repeatedly threatening and intimidating him and his family, forcibly entering his house, and physically assaulting him while claiming political influence.

Following this, the complainant moved the court under Section 156(3) of the CrPC. On September 23, 2019, a magistrate summoned the accused for offences under Sections 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 452 (house trespass), 500 (defamation), 506 (criminal intimidation), 511 (attempt), and 149 (unlawful assembly) of the IPC.

The accused thereafter approached the sessions court seeking anticipatory bail. While bail was granted, the court imposed the condition that they deposit their passports, prompting the present challenge.

Before the High Court, counsel for the petitioners argued that the condition was arbitrary and disproportionate, particularly when the summoning order itself did not involve grave offences warranting such restrictions. It was contended that there was no material on record suggesting that the accused posed a flight risk or were likely to evade trial. The petitioners also submitted that passports are essential identity documents and that surrendering them caused undue hardship.

The State opposed the plea, pointing out that the matter arose from a private complaint and that no police investigation was pending. A legal aid counsel appointed for the complainant argued that the condition was imposed to secure the ends of justice and prevent the accused from fleeing.

Justice Goel, however, found merit in the petitioners’ submissions. After analysing the statutory framework under the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, the Constitution, and the Passports Act, court held that bail conditions must satisfy the test of proportionality.

Relying on multiple Supreme Court decisions, including Munish Bhasin v. State (NCT of Delhi), Kunal Kumar Tiwari v. State of Bihar, and Frank Vitus v. Narcotics Control Bureau, court reiterated that bail conditions cannot be “freakish, arbitrary or onerous” so as to defeat the very object of bail.

The High Court observed that while courts do have the power to impose conditions to ensure the accused’s presence and prevent interference with the trial, such discretion is not unfettered. Importantly, court noted that impounding or restricting passports is governed by the Passports Act, and any such restriction must be backed by compelling reasons.

"It must be acknowledged that the passport is not merely a travel document, but is often used, inter alia, as a proof of nationality and identity. Ergo, an order for ‘deposit of  passport’, as a pre-condition for bail, is justifiable only on the basis of objective factors indicating a clear and imminent threat to the administration of justice, and must not be employed as punitive measure against an under-trial accused, who is presumed innocent until proven guilty," the court observed. 

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the petition and quashed the impugned condition, while leaving the rest of the anticipatory bail order intact.

Case Title: Ram Lubhaya and others vs. State of Punjab and another

Order Date: December 22, 2025

Bench: Justice Sumeet Goel