Karnataka High Court
Ritesh Kumar Jain Solanki vs The Assistant Commissioner Of Customs ... on 24 August, 2016
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24th DAY OF AUGUST, 2016
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4890 OF 2016
Between:
Ritesh Kumar Jain Solanki,
S/o Goutham Chand Solanki,
Aged about 35 years,
No.15/16, Vepery Church Road,
2nd Floor, Zalawad Apartment,
Chennai - 600 007. ...Petitioner
(By Shri. Rajeshwara P.N., Advocate)
And:
The Assistant Commissioner of
Customs (Legal),
Panambur, Mangalore - 575 010,
Dakshina Kannada. ...Respondent
(By Shri. C. Shashikantha, Advocate)
---
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C. praying to set aside the order dated 10.06.2016 in
C.C.No.345/2014 on the file of Prl. Sr. Civil Judge and
C.J.M., Mangalore (Annexure - A) and consequently allow
2
the application at Annexure - B in so far as issuing no
objection for re issuing passport to the petitioner.
This Petition coming on for admission this day, the
Court made the following:-
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.
2. The petitioner is facing criminal proceedings and in the initial stage while the court below had granted bail to the petitioner one of the conditions imposed was that the petitioner shall not travel abroad. However, the court below did not choose to impound the passport. Thereafter the petitioner's passport is said to have expired which was valid up to the year 2014. The petitioner having approached the passport authorities for renewal of the passport and since the passport authorities did not consider the application the petitioner approached the Chennai High Court for appropriate directions. The 3 Chennai High Court having allowed his petition has directed the passport authorities to consider his application for renewal, which has been rejected on the ground that unless the petitioner obtains permission from the criminal court where the case is pending his application could not be considered.
3. The petitioner draws reference to the notification under which the respondents have possibly turned down the petitioner's request which is produced at Annexure 'J' to the petition. The notification dated 25.08.1993 would indicate that in cases where citizens against whom proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by them are pending before a criminal court in India and who produce orders from the court concerned permitting them to depart from India, would be exempt from the operation of the provisions of Clause (f) of sub-Section (2) of Section 6 of the said Act, subject to certain conditions.
4
4. The petitioner therefore having approached the court below seeking such a direction. The court below has refused permission on the ground that the condition which the bail was granted to the petitioner imposed a restriction on his travel to abroad and in that background has rejected the application. In so far as renewal of passport was concerned, it was opined that it was for the petitioner to approach the authorities to seek such renewal and the court need not direct any such renewal.
5. It is to be noticed that it is only in cases where the petitioner seeks to travel abroad that permission of the court where the criminal case is pending is warranted, there is no indication that even for renewal of passport the petitioner would require such permission from the court.
6. However, it is pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent that once a passport is renewed there would not be any bar for the petitioner to travel 5 abroad and he may jump bail and therefore would violate the condition of bail and it is firstly required of the petitioner to obtain a modification of the order of the court below which has imposed such a restriction of travel abroad and only then could he seek renewal of the passport. For otherwise the passport which is renewed can be easily used to travel abroad since there are many countries which do not require a visa permit to enter the country and visa is granted on arrival. Therefore, he would submit that any such permission of the petitioner being permitted to apply for renewal before the authorities without the condition imposed by the court below being modified would result in an irregularity and enable the petitioner to jump bail. This objection may be justified since the renewal of the passport will certainly enable the petitioner to travel abroad. The passport authorities having rejected the application without reference to any legal provision may not be tenable. Consequently, it would be 6 proper if the petitioner should approach the court below and seek modification of the condition imposed in the first place that he shall not travel abroad. If that is modified it would then be open for the petitioner to seek renewal of the passport for which he does not require separate permission from the court.
Sd/-
JUDGE ykl