The Andhra Pradesh High Court has instructed the Superintendent of Police and the Inspector of Police to give back the passport of Telugu Desaam Party member Yesasvi Boddulluri. This decision was made as the court found that the required procedure outlined in Sections 91 and 102 of the C.r.P.C was not properly followed.

Justice B.S. Bhanumathi issued the ruling in response to a petition filed by Yesasvi Boddulluri against the CB-CID Police Officials.

The petitioner's passport had been confiscated by the officials on December 23, 2023, and despite multiple requests, they declined to return it. The court's directive addresses this situation.

“As can be understood from the submissions on both sides, the seizure of the passport is not authorized nor was the procedure contemplated under Sections 91 and 102 of Cr.P.C. followed. Therefore, the continuation of holding the passport with respondents No. 3 and 4 is not legally sustainable.”

The court took note that the petitioner is a non-resident Indian (NRI) who was detained at the airport upon arriving in Hyderabad earlier this month. Additionally, the petitioner highlighted that they had applied for visa stamping and were given an appointment for December 26, 2023. It was stressed that missing this appointment would result in a three-month wait for the next available slot.

The court bench affirmed that depriving the petitioner of their fundamental right to hold a passport must adhere to the due process as established by law.

The case of the prosecution was that the petitioner was a repeat offender and was in the habit of creating mischief on social media platforms by defaming the government.  They cited instances from 2022 when two First Information Reports (F.I.R.s) were filed against the petitioner under sections 153A and 505(3) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), as well as 120(b) of IPC and 66-C of the Information Technology Act, 2000. Additionally, notices were issued under section 41-A of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPc). However, the petitioner, rather disapprovingly, conducted press conferences the very next day and reiterated the same statements for which they were charged.

The prosecution put forward the suggestion that certain conditions could be imposed if relief were to be granted to the petitioner. Conversely, the senior counsel representing the petitioner argued that all cases lodged against their client lacked substance, emphasizing that criticizing the government does not warrant punishment under the aforementioned sections. Furthermore, they contended that the investigating authority failed to adhere to the procedures outlined in sections 91 and 102 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).

Section 91 mandates that a police officer issue an order or summon the document being sought for seizure, while Section 102 specifies that the seizure of any document must be communicated to a Magistrate.

The Senior Counsel strongly objected to the prosecution's request for imposing conditions, arguing that if the petitioner were to breach the notice, the investigating authority already has recourse available through the suitable provisions of the law.

The authorities were thus directed to return the passport of the petitioner on the same day.

W.P. 33241 of 2023

Counsel for petitioner: Umesh Chandra P V G

Counsel for respondents: Special Public Prosecutor for CB-CID, G.P. for Home.