Karnataka High Court
Vishveshwar S/O Late Rajayya Suram vs State Of Karnataka on 31 August, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:6930
CRL.P No. 200534 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.200534 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
SRI VISHVESHWAR
S/O. LATE RAJAYYA SURAM
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
OCCUPATION: PRIVATE EMPLOYEE
RESIDING AT H.NO.38-62
HANUMAKONDA COLONY
OPP. RSS OFFICE, WARANGAL
ANDRA PRADESH-506 001.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI SHAHNAWAZ MAMADAPUR AND
SRI. MAHADEV S. PATIL, ADVOCATES)
AND:
Digitally signed STATE OF KARNATAKA
by SHILPA R BY WOMEN POLICE STATION
TENIHALLI BIDAR
Location: HIGH
COURT OF REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL STATE PUBLIC
KARNATAKA PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. ANITA M. REDDY, H.C.G.P.)
***
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:6930
CRL.P No. 200534 of 2023
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
THE CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE I
ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C.-II, BIDAR, IN CRIMINAL
CASE NO.2066/2018 ON SECTIONS 5 AND 6 OF THE PASSPORTS
ACT, 1967 (ANNEXURE-G) AND CONSEQUENTLY, SET ASIDE THE
ORDER OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
BIDAR, IN CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.38/2021 VIDE ORDER
DATED 14.06.2022 (ANNEXURE-H) AND ALLOW THE SAID
APPLICATION.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to set aside the order dated 21-8-2021 passed by the I Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class-II, Bidar, in Criminal Case No.2066 of 2018 filed under Sections 5 and 6 of the Passports Act, 1967 (for short, 'Act') and consequently, to set aside the order dated 14-6-2022 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bidar, in Criminal Revision Petition No.38 of 2021.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State and perused the material on record. -3-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:6930 CRL.P No. 200534 of 2023
3. On 8-3-2021, the petitioner filed an application under Sections 5 and 6 of the Act before the trial Court seeking permission to release the passport which is in the Regional Passport Office, Hyderabad, to travel abroad during pendency of the case, but the trial Court rejected the application and the First Appellate Court also rejected the application on the ground that issue of direction to Regional Passport Authority to handover passport to the petitioner is not at all maintainable and the same is not in the jurisdiction of the Court.
4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PARVEZ NOORDIN LOKHANDWALLA v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER reported in (2020) 10 SCC 77 at paragraph Nos.19 and 20 has held as under:
''19. In Barun Chandra Thakur v. Ryan Augustine Pinto, this Court restored a condition mandating that the respondent seek prior permission from a competent court for travel abroad. The condition, -4- NC: 2023:KHC-K:6930 CRL.P No. 200534 of 2023 which was originally imposed by the High Court while granting anticipatory bail was subsequently deleted by it. This Court made the following observations with respect to imposing restrictions on the accused's right to travel: (SCC OnLine SC para 9) "9. ... There could be no gainsaying to that the right to travel abroad is a valuable one and an integral part of the right to personal liberty. Equally, however, the pre-condition of securing prior permission before travelling abroad is a crucial ingredient which undoubtedly was engrafted as a condition for the grant of anticipatory bail in this case. ... At best, the condition for seeking permission before travelling abroad could have been regulated, not deleted altogether."
20. This Court has passed multiple orders previously allowing an accused enlarged on bail to travel abroad. In Ganpati Ramnath -5- NC: 2023:KHC-K:6930 CRL.P No. 200534 of 2023 v. State of Bihar, this Court allowed an accused applicant to travel abroad for medical treatment, modifying its earlier bail order, noting that the applicant had travelled abroad on the ground of medical necessity on six occasions with the permission of the court and had returned.
In K. Mohammed v. State of Kerala, this Court allowed the appellant-accused to travel abroad to meet in the exigencies of a family situation. In Tarun Trikha v. State of W.B., this Court allowed the petitioner- accused to travel to Indonesia in connection with his employment and to return once the work was completed. In Pitam Pradhan v. State of A.P., this Court while granting anticipatory bail, permitted the petitioner to travel abroad noting that his job required him to travel abroad at frequent intervals and may lose his employment if he were not permitted to travel abroad.
5. Having regard to the genesis of the dispute as well as the issue as to whether the petitioner is likely to flee from justice if he were to be permitted to travel to the -6- NC: 2023:KHC-K:6930 CRL.P No. 200534 of 2023 US, I find, on the basis of the previous record of the appellant, that there is no reason or justification to deny him the permission which has been sought to travel to the US for eight weeks. The petitioner is an Indian citizen and holds an Indian passport and he is a Green Card holder of US. While it is true that an FIR has been lodged against the petitioner, that, in my view, should not in itself prevent him from travelling to the US, where he is a resident as Green Card holder, particularly when it has been drawn to the attention of the this Court that serious consequences would ensue in terms of the invalidation of the Green Card if the petitioner were not permitted to travel.
6. The record indicates the large amount of litigation between the family of the petitioner and the complainant. Notwithstanding or perhaps because of this, the petitioner has frequently travelled between the US and India even after the filing of the complaint and the FIR. Hence, I am of the view that the application filed for -7- NC: 2023:KHC-K:6930 CRL.P No. 200534 of 2023 permission to travel abroad ought to have been allowed to travel to the US for a period of eight weeks.
7. I accordingly permit the petitioner to do so, subject to his furnishing an undertaking to this Court before the date of travel that he will return to India after the expiry of a period of eight weeks and that he shall be available on all dates of hearing before the court of criminal jurisdiction, unless specifically exempted from personal appearance. The undertaking shall be filed in this Court before the petitioner undertakes travel. On the return of the petitioner after eight weeks and if it becomes necessary for him to travel to the US, the petitioner shall apply to the court concerned for permission to travel and any such application shall be considered on its own merits by the competent court. The petitioner shall travel only upon the grant of permission and subject to the terms imposed. The passport of the petitioner shall be handed over to the petitioner to facilitate his travel, subject to the condition that he shall -8- NC: 2023:KHC-K:6930 CRL.P No. 200534 of 2023 deposit it with the investigating officer immediately on his return.
8. In the instant case, the petitioner has sought to issue directions to the Passport Authority for release the passport and permit him to travel to the United States of America. In view of the pendency of case in Criminal Case No.2066 of 2018 on the file of the I Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class-II, Bidar. Admittedly, right to travel abroad is a valuable one and an integral part of the right to personal liberty. Further, the pre- condition of securing prior permission before travelling abroad is a crucial ingredient, which undoubtedly engrafted. Therefore, the condition for seeking permission before travelling abroad would have been regulated. In fact, the trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court ought to have permitted the petitioner to travel abroad, as he is a green card holder. Admittedly, his passport has been renewed from time to time and if permission is granted to travel abroad, no hardship or prejudice would -9- NC: 2023:KHC-K:6930 CRL.P No. 200534 of 2023 be caused either to the prosecution or to the complainant. Hence, the application filed under Sections 5 and 6 of the Act deserves to be allowed.
9. Accordingly, the application is allowed. The petitioner is permitted to travel to the United States of America for a period of ten weeks, subject to his furnishing an undertaking to this Court before the date of travel that he will return to India after the expiry of a period of ten weeks and that he shall be available on all dates of hearing before the trial Court, unless specifically exempted from personal appearance.
10. Further, the undertaking shall be filed in this Court before the petitioner undertakes travel. On the return of the petitioner after ten weeks and if it becomes necessary for him to travel to aboard, the petitioner shall apply to the Court concerned for permission to travel and any such application shall be considered on its own merits by the trial Court. The petitioner shall travel only upon the
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:6930 CRL.P No. 200534 of 2023 grant of permission and subject to terms imposed. The passport of the petitioner shall be handed over to the petitioner to facilitate his travel, subject to the condition that he shall deposit it with the Investigating Officer immediately on his return.
11. Accordingly, the order of both the Courts below stand set aside and the criminal petition stands disposed off in terms of the above directions.
Sd/-
JUDGE NE/KVK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28