Bombay HC: Mere Pendency Of Criminal Case Not Sufficient to Refuse Passport Renewal

 In the facts of the case merely because the offence under

Sections 406, 420, 120(b) read with 34 of IPC is pending against

the applicant, the said fact by itself is not sufficient to deny the

right of the applicant for renewal of the passport.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1193 OF 2022

Nijal Navin Shah  V/s. The State of Maharashtra and Anr. 

CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.

DATED : DECEMBER 23, 2022.

Citation: 2023 Lawweb (Bom HC ) 8.

1. The applicant who is facing prosecution under Sections 406,

420, 120(b) read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 had

applied for relief of renewal of the passport before the learned

Metropolitan Magistrate 31st Court, Vikhroli, Mumbai by the

impugned order the learned Magistrate has rejected the

application holding that the investigation is not complete; one of

the accused is absconding; there shall chances of tampering of

evidence.

2. Learned Advocate Mr. Yogesh Gandhi appears for respondent

No.2 and copy of writ petition has been served on the advocate

for informant.

3. Insofar as the prayer for renewal of passport is concern, it is

well settled that the rights of person applying for renewal of

passport are regulated by the provisions of passport Act. The

learned Additional Sessions Judge had permitted the applicant to

travel United State of America from 17th July, 2017 to 11th August,

2019. There is no allegation that the applicant had breached the

conditions imposed by the Court while granting permission to

travel abroad.

4. In the facts of the case merely because the offence under

Sections 406, 420, 120(b) read with 34 of IPC is pending against

the applicant, the said fact by itself is not sufficient to deny the

right of the applicant for renewal of the passport. There is no

material on record to show that the applicant carries flight and risk

The applicant has immovable property at Mumbai. The applicant’s

son is working at Melbourne, Austrilia. In view of the Division

Bench of Hon’ble High Court in the case of Narendra K. Ambawani

Vs. Union of India W.P. No. 361 of 2014. The application for

renewal of passport needs to be granted.

5. The learned Additional Sessions Judge while passing the

order of release of applicant for pre-arrest Bail had imposed

condition that the applicant shall not travel abroad without

permission of this Court. Considering said condition, apprehension

expressed by the investigating agency is uncalled for, as such

apprehension is taken care of by conditions No.6 imposed in

prearrest bail order.

6. In that view of the matter, the impugned order passed by the

learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Vikhroli Court on Exh.1 in C.C.

No.261/N/2022 dated 8th September, 2022 is quashed and set

aside.

7. The respondent No.2 is directed not to reject the renewal of

passport granting on the pendency of offence against the

applicant. However, respondent No.2 shall scrutinize eligibility of

the applicant as required under the provisions of the passport Act,

and shall pass order in accordance with law on application for

renewal of passport of the applicant.

8. In spite of service of copy of petition on the advocate for the

informant, none appears for.

9. The Criminal Application is disposed of in the above terms.

No costs.

(AMIT BORKAR, J.)

3

::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 20/01/2023 11:53:33 :::

Print Page