Calcutta High Court - Jalpaiguri
Ruddrakhya Ghosh vs Unknown on 27 April, 2026
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.)