27.04.2026 Item no.31. Court No.5. In the High Court at Calcutta Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri Criminal Miscellaneous Jurisdiction CRR 148 of 2026 In the matter of : Ruddrakhya Ghosh ……Petitioner. Mr. Ujjal Ray Mr. Atreya Chakraborty ………….for the petitioner Mr. Debasish Mukhopadhyay Ms. Madhushri Dutta Ms. Srishti Sarkar Ms. Bipasha Mrug ……for the de facto complainant. 1. In the present revisional application that has been filed challenging the order dated April 18, 2026 passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 07 of 2026, whereby the petitioner’s prayer for return of his passport was rejected, this Court is called upon to determine which of the competing considerations ought to prevail in the given factual matrix: the apprehension that return of the passport may lead to the petitioner evading trial, and the petitioner’s claim that its retention will jeopardise his employment abroad and livelihood. 2. Whenever, in a criminal proceeding, a passport holder, whether a foreign national or one required to travel abroad for work, education, marriage or similar purposes, is directed to surrender the passport to secure his presence, a recurring issue arises whether he must remain in the country until the 2 conclusion of the case or whether a balanced alternative can be devised, reconciling his right to travel with the Court’s duty to ensure his availability for trial. 3. Needless to emphasize, in a catena of decisions, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the right to travel abroad is not only a fundamental right guaranteed under the Constitution but also an important facet of basic human rights. A useful reference may be made to the decisions in Mrs. Menaka Gandhi vs. Union of India, reported in AIR 1978 SC 597, Satwant Singh vs. Asst. Passport Officer, New Delhi, reported in AIR 1967 SC 1836 and Satish Chandra Verma vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in 2019 SCC OnLine SC 2048. However, this right is not absolute and may be regulated in the interest of justice, security, or public order. The question that, therefore, arises is as to what guiding principles ought to be followed by the Court in striking a balance between these competing considerations. 4. In the prefatory note to the decision in Mahesh Kumar Agarwal vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2887, the Hon’ble Justice Vikram Nath, speaking for the Bench, has shed illuminating light on the issue. I cannot resist the inclination to extract the relevant passage, which reads as follows: ‘Liberty, in our constitutional scheme, is not a gift of the State but its first obligation. The freedom of a citizen to move, to travel, to pursue livelihood and opportunity, subject to law, is an essential part of the guarantee under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The State may, where statue so provides, regulate, restrain that freedom in the interest of justice, security or public order but such restraint must be 3 narrowly confined to what is necessary, proportionate to the object sought to be achieved, and clearly anchored in law. When procedural safeguards are converted into rigid barriers, or temporary disabilities are allowed to harden into definite exclusions, the balance between the power of the State and the dignity of the individual is disturbed, and the promise of the Constitution is put at risk’. 5. Therefore, the power to restrain a person from travelling abroad must be narrowly confined to what is necessary and proportionate to the object sought to be achieved, and procedural safeguards must not be converted into rigid barriers. 6. Now, coming to the facts leading to the filing of the present revisional application, which give rise to the issue at hand, it is evident that the petitioner, a resident of District Hooghly and presently employed with Emirates Airlines and posted in Dubai, had entered into matrimony with the added opposite party, who hails from District Cooch Behar. Subsequently, disputes arose in their marital life, prompting the added opposite party to initiate criminal proceedings against him, his parents, and his sister by lodging an FIR, being Cooch Behar Women P.S. Case No. 62 of 2024 dated 11.04.2024, under Sections 498A/307/506/406 of the Indian Penal Code. 7. Subsequently, the added opposite party (hereinafter referred to as the wife) preferred a writ petition, being WPA 2157 of 2024, inter alia alleging inaction on the part of the concerned police authorities in arresting the petitioner. The record reveals that, by an order dated 27.09.2024, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court directed the concerned police authorities 4 to issue a ‘look-out notice’ against the petitioner the moment he enters the country. 8. The petitioner challenged the order dated 27.09.2024 by preferring an intra-court appeal, being MAT 11 of 2025, primarily on the ground that the said order had been passed without affording him an opportunity of hearing. However, the appeal was disposed of by an order dated 02.04.2025, granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the learned Single Bench by way of an appropriate application, as the petitioner/appellant therein was unrepresented before the learned Single Judge at the time when the impugned order was passed. 9. Accordingly, an application for recalling the order dated 27.09.2024, being CAN 1 of 2025, was preferred in connection with WPA 2157 of 2024, and the same was disposed of by an order dated 29.07.2025. The operative portion of the order dated 29.07.2025, passed in CAN 1 of 2025, is as follows: “9. The applicant no. 1 is directed to return to the country and within 48 hours deposit his passport to the Officer-in-Charge of the Women Police Station (S), Coochbehar. 10. The said passport will not be returned to the applicant no. 1 without obtaining the order from the learned Trial Court where the proceedings are pending. 11.Learned advocate for the applicants prays that the applicant no. 1 may be permitted to seek leave from the High Court for taking back the passport, but the Court is not inclined to accept the prayer of the applicant no. 1 because the criminal proceedings are pending before the learned Trial Court and the applicant no. 1 ought to approach the said Court for necessary order for return of his passport. 12. In case the applicant no. 1 remains non-cooperative before any of the judicial forum in the pending proceedings initiated by the petitioner, then the Court 5 may take a decision to re-impose the restriction which has been recalled by this order.” 10. By an order dated 08.10.2025, pre-arrest bail was granted in favour of the petitioner by the learned Sessions Judge, Cooch Behar. Thereafter, on 23.03.2026, he was granted regular bail, and on the same date, his passport was seized by the Investigating Officer concerned. On 24.03.2026, the petitioner filed an application before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cooch Behar, seeking return of his passport. 11. The record reveals that, challenging the order dated 24.02.2026, a revisional application, being CRR No. 98 of 2026, was moved before this Court on 13.04.2026. On that date, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court observed that the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate had refused to return the passport on the ground that the matter was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. It was further submitted on behalf of the prosecution that the matter had been kept in abeyance and that there had been no commitment of the case to the Sessions Court. 12. In view of the above, the Bench directed the Chief Judicial Magistrate to commit the case to the Court of Sessions within three days from the date of the order dated 13.04.2026, and, upon such committal, the Sessions Judge was directed to take cognizance of the offences and to consider the application for return of the passport on merits, if such application was made before him. 13. On 18.04.2026, when the case was committed to the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Cooch Behar, the petitioner, along 6 with the other accused persons, appeared before that Court and filed a fresh application for return of his passport. By an order dated 18.04.2026, the petitioner’s bail was confirmed; however, his application for return of the passport was rejected, inter alia, with the following observations: “It appears from the order dated 27.09.2024 passed in WPA no. 2157 of 2024, the Hon’ble High Court has been pleased to direct the police authority to issue “Look Out Notice” against the accused/petitioner so that appropriate steps might be taken against him the moment he enters into the country. Subsequently, vide. order dated 29.07.2025, passed in WPA 2157 of 2024 (CAN 01 of 2025), the Hon’ble High Court has been pleased to direct the accused/petitioner to return to the country and to deposit his Passport to the Officer-in-Charge of Women P.S. Cooch Behar within 48 hours and it has also been directed by the Hon’ble High Court that the Passport will not be returned to the applicant/accused without obtaining the order from the trial court where the proceedings are pending. It also appears from the said order that the Hon’ble High Court has observed that since the criminal proceedings are pending before the Trial Court, the applicant no. 1 to approach the trial court for necessary order for return of his Passport. On going through the orders dated 27.09.2024 passed in WPA 2157 of 2024 and order dated 29.07.2025 passed in WPA no. 2157 of (CAN 01 of 2025) that this accused/petitioner had deposited his Passport only after the Hon’ble High Court issued Look Out Notice against him and it also appears from the conduct of the accused/petitioner that he was evading all notices and refused to co-operate in the criminal proceedings initiated against him. Since the accused/petitioner has been working in Emirates Airlines stationed at Dubai, UAE and if the Passport is released at this stage, there is a chance of accused fleeing from justice an the very purpose of this criminal proceeding arising out of G.R. Case no. 637 of 2024 would be frustrated. I also find from the past conduct of this accused/petitioner that his presence before this Court was secured only after the Hon’ble High Court issued ‘Look Out Notice’ against him and he was asked to deposit his Passport before the concerned Police Station. 7 Considering the past conduct of the accused/petitioner avoiding notices in the criminal proceedings against him and in order to secure his presence in this criminal proceedings initiated against him, this court is of the opinion that the return of Passport would frustrate the very purpose of the instant criminal proceedings and as such, this Court is of the opinion that it would not be proper to return the Passport to the accused/petitioner at this stage. Accordingly, the petition filed by the accused/petitioner for return of his Passport is rejected. Fix 02/06/2026 for appearance of the accused persons.” 14. Mr. Roy, learned advocate appearing with Mr. Chakraborty, submits that the impugned order is self-contradictory, inasmuch as the learned Sessions Judge, while confirming the petitioner’s bail, observed that his conduct in attending Court was satisfactory, but, while rejecting his prayer for return of passport, held that he had been evading notices and not cooperating in the proceedings. 15. He further submits that the learned Sessions Judge placed heavy reliance on the order dated 27.09.2024, noting that the petitioner returned to the country and deposited his passport pursuant to a Look-Out Notice; however, the said writ petition, WPA No. 2157 of 2024, was moved behind his back, as he received a copy only on the evening of 27.09.2024. Immediately thereafter, the petitioner preferred an intra-court appeal and, pursuant to leave granted, filed an application, being CAN 1 of 2025, for recall of the order dated 27.09.2024. 16. He contends that the learned Sessions Judge omitted to note that, by order dated 29.07.2025 in CAN 1 of 2025, the direction for issuance of a Look-Out Notice was recalled on the petitioner’s undertaking to co-operate, subject to re- imposition in case of default; he submits that, while the said 8 direction was in force, the petitioner could not return for fear of arrest, but, following its recall, he returned to the country, obtained anticipatory bail, and thereafter applied for return of his passport. 17. He submits that the petitioner has been directed by his employer to resume duties by 21.04.2026, failing which he risks losing his employment, and contends that pending criminal proceedings cannot indefinitely bar an accused from travelling abroad for legitimate purposes; he further submits that, in view of the presumption of innocence, the petitioner, accused under Sections 498A/307/506/406 of the Indian Penal Code arising out of marital discord, cannot at this stage be treated as a hardened criminal. 18. Referring to the decision in Satish Chandra Verma (supra), he argues that the right to travel abroad is a basic human right and forms part of the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. He further contends that the order dated 18.04.2026 was passed by the learned Sessions Judge solely on the basis of an apprehension expressed by the wife that the petitioner would not be available if his passport were returned to him, which, according to him, is wholly unfounded. 19. Per contra, Ms. Dutta, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the de facto complainant along with Ms. Sarkar, submits that the petitioner did not respond to various notices and summons, nor did he co-operate with the Investigating Officer or the learned Court below. She further contends that, after 9 disputes arose in their marital life, the couple began living separately. However, although the wife has no independent source of income and is unable to maintain herself, the petitioner did not provide her with any financial support. 20. She contends that the learned Sessions Judge has rightly observed that, pursuant to the direction for issuance of a ‘Look-Out Notice’, the petitioner returned to the country and submitted his passport. She further submits that, if the passport is returned to him, the petitioner may not be available during trial. She submits that the wife is still interested in the resumption of conjugal rights with the petitioner. 21. Mr. Chakraborty, learned APP appearing for the State, opposes the petitioner’s prayer for return of his passport and submits that the conduct of the petitioner does not inspire confidence; as such, the learned Court below has rightly rejected his prayer for return of the passport. 22. In reply, Mr. Roy submits that, on the one hand, the wife is seeking financial support from the petitioner; however, on the other hand, she has been making attempts that may result in the petitioner losing his only source of livelihood. He further submits that, while the wife claims to be interested in resuming conjugal life with the petitioner, she has been leaving no stone unturned to act against him, including by involving the investigating agency in opening his locker, defreezing his savings bank account, and the like. 10 23. In response to my query, Ms. Sarkar submits that the wife has initiated a proceeding seeking an order of maintenance against the petitioner; however, she is unable to state at what stage, the proceeding is now and whether an order directing the petitioner to pay ad-interim maintenance has been issued. 24. By the order dated 29.07.2025 passed in CAN 1 of 2025 in connection with WPA 2157 of 2024, it was observed that the passport would not be returned to the petitioner without obtaining an order from the learned Trial Court where the proceedings are pending. Thereafter, by an order dated 13.04.2026 passed in CRR 98 of 2026, the learned Sessions Judge, Cooch Behar, was directed to consider the petitioner’s application for return of his passport on merits. Thus, the order dated 29.07.2025 did not impose a complete bar on consideration of the petitioner’s prayer for return of his passport, and accordingly, there appears to be no impediment for this Court to examine whether the petitioner’s application for return of his passport was rightly rejected. 25. At the cost of repetition, if the sequence of events is summarised, it would be evident that, on the basis of a complaint lodged by the wife, Cooch Behar Women P.S. Case No. 62 of 2024 U/s. 498A/307/406/506 IPC was registered on 11.04.2024 i.e. after promulgation of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 on 25. 12.2023. However, on 27.09.2024, i.e., within about five and a half months, a direction was issued for issuance of a ‘Look-Out Notice’ against the petitioner as and 11 when his enters into the country. The petitioner contends that, for fear of arrest, he could not return to the country. 26. The order dated 27.09.2024 further directed the Manager, Axis Bank, to permit the wife to open the locker, which was jointly operated, and to remove her stridhan articles upon execution of a zimmanama bond. The order dated 23.02.2026 reflects that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cooch Behar, called for a report from the Investigating Officer regarding defreezing of the savings bank account and Locker No. 1052. 27. Ordinarily, prior to submission of a charge sheet in connection with a case, an accused person is not obligated to appear before the Court. It is unclear what notices, if any, the petitioner allegedly failed to respond to. It has not been brought on record whether any notice under Section 41A of the CrPC (corresponding to Section 35(3) of the BNSS) was ever issued to the petitioner. It is also not evident whether any application under Section 94 of the CrPC (corresponding to Section 97 of the BNSS) was filed by the wife or sought to be served upon the petitioner. Further, it has not been shown whether any summons in connection with maintenance proceedings was ever issued to the petitioner. 28. On 08.10.2025, the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail upon consideration of whether there was any likelihood of his fleeing from justice. In the first part of the order dated 18.04.2026, the learned Sessions Judge observed that the conduct of the accused persons, including the petitioner, 12 appeared to be satisfactory in attending the Court; however, in the latter part of the same order, it was observed that the conduct of the accused/petitioner indicated that he had been evading notices and refusing to co-operate in the criminal proceedings initiated against him. It was further observed that, if the passport were returned to him, there was a likelihood of his fleeing from justice, thereby frustrating the criminal proceedings. Accordingly, considering his alleged past conduct, the Court rejected the petitioner’s prayer for return of his passport. 29. However, it remains unclear to this Court that, if a direction for issuance of a ‘Look-Out Notice’ is issued within about five and a half months from the date of initiation of a criminal proceeding of this nature against a person, how such person can reasonably be expected to respond to notices. It further appears that, immediately after the said direction for issuance of the ‘Look-Out Notice’ was recalled, the petitioner appeared before the Court. From the record, it is also not clear whether any warrant of arrest was ever issued against him in connection with Case No. 62 of 2024. 30. As observed earlier, when a person who is a passport holder and employed in a foreign country is directed to surrender his passport, thereby exposing him to the risk of losing his employment, and, on the other hand, there is an apprehension that, if the passport is returned to him, he may not be available during trial, the Court is required to strike a balance between the competing considerations. 13 31. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in (1999) 5 SCC 694, had occasion to deal with a similar situation. The appellant therein had acquired British citizenship and had settled in England. His son married an Indian woman; however, the marriage ultimately failed. The appellant faced criminal proceedings and was directed to surrender his passport before the learned ACJM. Taking note of the situation, the Hon’ble Court made the following observations: “3. But something more has to be granted to the appellant or else he will be put to irreparable sufferings as his passport has now been kept by the ACJM, Rai Singh Nagar, Rajasthan. If his passport is not released to him he will be compelled to remain in India which unfortunately is not his present home, and continue to remain here until the final end of the criminal proceedings now launched. Nobody knows when the trial will commence and end. But the respondent's counsel expressed apprehension that if the appellant is allowed to go back to England or to leave India he might not make himself available for the trial. The situation is not therefore free from difficulty. On the one side the legal process has to reach its normal culmination and on the other side the agony of the. appellant that he cannot go home is genuine. We think a solution has to be worked out in the interest of justice. [4] After hearing both sides we direct the ACJM, Rai Singh Nagar, Rajasthan to return the passport of the appellant on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs 3,00,000. 00 with two solvent sureties to the satisfaction of the said court. [5] To ensure his attendance in the court when trail begins, we may make a provision. We agree that it would be difficult for the appellant to be present on all posting dates in the trial court. Therefore, we permit him to appear through counsel except on days when his presence is imperatively needed. He must file an 14 application before the trial court through counsel and seek dispensation of his personal presence and ensure that his counsel would be present on his behalf on days except when his presence is indispensable. If he makes such an application the trial court shall dispense with his physical presence in court.” 32. Therefore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that an accused person is not required to appear on all dates of hearing and may, through counsel, seek dispensation of personal appearance except on occasions when his presence is indispensable. Both the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita provide for such dispensation. Save and except for stages such as consideration of charge, examination under Section 313 of the Code, and pronouncement of judgment etc., an accused may seek exemption from personal appearance. In Mahesh Kumar Agarwal (supra), it was held that any restraint must be narrowly confined to what is necessary and proportionate to the object sought to be achieved. 33. In the case at hand, denial of return of the petitioner’s passport would, in effect, compel him to leave his employment, although the Court’s concern is to ensure his presence on the dates when his presence is indispensable. The Court is required to strike a balance between these two competing considerations. 34. Needless to emphasise, in the present case, the order dated 29.07.2025 imposed a condition upon the petitioner that, if he remains non-co-operative before any judicial forum in the 15 pending proceedings, the Court may take a decision to re- impose the restriction earlier imposed by the order dated 27.09.2024. Furthermore, the Code and the BNSS also provide for measures to secure his attendance before the Court, if the situation so demands. 35. Therefore, based on the discussions made in the foregoing paragraphs, this revisional application is allowed. The learned Sessions Judge, Cooch Behar, is directed to return the petitioner’s passport upon his executing a bond for a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- (two lakhs) with two sureties to the satisfaction of the said Court, subject to the further condition that the petitioner shall make himself available on all dates when his presence is indispensable, along with such other condition or conditions as may be deemed fit and proper by the learned Sessions Judge. 36. It is clarified that the learned Trial Court shall proceed with the trial without being influenced by any of the observations made in this order. 37. With these observations and order, the present revisional application stands disposed of . (Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.)