Karnataka High Court
Sri. Venkatesh vs Paramesh on 13 November, 2017
Equivalent citations: 2018 CRI. L. J. 1526, 2018 (1) AKR 371 (2018) 2 ALLCRILR 621, (2018) 2 ALLCRILR 621
Author: K.N.Phaneendra
Bench: K.N.Phaneendra
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3055/2017
BETWEEN:
SRI. VENKATESH
S/O SRI. KRISHNACHAR
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
RESIDING AT T.T.ROAD
HIRIYURU TOWN, HIRIYURU TALUK
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT
HAVING OFFICE AT
NO.1563, 3RD UPSTAIRS
8TH CROSS, OPPOSITE TO BMTC
BUS STAND, CHANDRALAYOUT
BANGALORE - 560 072.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. S. VELUMURUGAN, ADV., FOR
SRI. NAVEEN R.C., ADV.,)
AND:
1. PARAMESH
S/O MAHADEVAPPA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
RESIDING AT BEHIND
GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL
HIRIYURU TOWN
HIRIYURU.
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY HIRIYURU TOWN POLICE
HIRIYURU
2
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT
REPRESENTED BY
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SANDESH J CHOUTA, SPP2 FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER AT
ANNEXURE - A PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL
CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., HIRIYUR IN C.C.NO.280/2015
DATED 30.07.2016 AND AT ANNEXURE - B PASSED BY
THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
CHITRADURGA IN CRL.R.P.NO.56/2016 DATED 08.09.2016
AND PLEASE TO DIRECT THE TRIAL COURT TO ISSUE NO
OBJECTION CERTIFICATE TO THE PETITIONER.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the records.
2. The trial Court in C.C.No.280/2015 has rejected the application filed by the petitioner for the purpose of getting a passport in his name. The learned counsel relied upon the circular issued by the Ministry of External Affairs dated 21.08.2014, wherein it is 3 prescribed that if a criminal case is pending against a person who wants to have a passport, permission of the concerned Court is required. Therefore, he has made an application for grant of permission before the trial Court. The said application was rejected by the trial Court on the ground that the Court while releasing him on bail for the offences under Sections 406, 420, 472, 120(B) of IPC has imposed conditions to the effect that,-
"4. The accused shall not leave the jurisdiction of this Court.
5. The accused shall mark his appearance before SHO, Hiriyur Town Police Staton on 1st and 15th day of every calendar month for a period of 60 days or filing of charge sheet whichever is earlier."
3. It appears that condition No.5 has become infructuous because charge sheet has been already filed. However, condition No.4 is still in force. Therefore, the trial Court is of the opinion that when the Court has imposed condition on the accused not to leave the jurisdiction of the Court, then the question of 4 permitting him to have a passport is not tenable. Hence, on that ground the application came to be rejected.
4. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred Crl.R.P.No.56/2016 before the Principal District and Sessions Judge at Chitradurga. The Sessions Court has observed that the petitioner may escape from the clutches of law and he may not appear before the Court. Infact on several occasions, the petitioner failed to appear before the Court and filed the exemption application. Relying upon such conduct of the petitioner, the Sessions Judge rejected the said application, consequently, rejecting the revision petition. Being aggrieved by the above said two orders, present petition is filed.
5. It is understandable that mere taking of a passport does not mean that a person can leave the Country without permission of the Court. 5
6. On careful perusal of the entire order sheet of the trial Court, the accused No.2 who is the petitioner herein had appeared before the Court on almost all the hearing dates, except on one or two occasions. Considering the grounds in the exemption application, the Court has permitted him to absent himself from appearing before the Court. Therefore, when the Court has applied its judicious mind to exempt the accused, his absence cannot be found fault with by the Court sofar as the petitioner is concerned. However, on almost all the hearing dates, except on one or two occasions, the order sheet discloses that the petitioner has appeared before the Court. However, it shows that the accused No.1 is not appearing before the Court regularly.
7. On careful perusal of the entire materials on record, the Court cannot restrict a person from exercising his statutory power that he can have 6 passport, but that does not mean that he can travel anywhere or everywhere and fly to foreign Country without taking permission of the Court or getting the bail conditions imposed relaxed. Therefore, on that reasons, I do not find strong reason to reject the said application. However, with stringent conditions the petition deserves to be allowed. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The order passed by the learned Magistrate in C.C.No.280/2015 dated 30.7.2016 and also the order passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge at Chitradurga in Cr.R.P.No.56/2016 dated
8.9.2016 are hereby set aside.
Consequently, the application filed by the petitioner seeking no objection for granting of passport is hereby allowed. However, a condition imposed on the petitioner that if the petitioner wants to travel to any of the foreign countries, he should not do so, without getting the said 7 bail conditions relaxed, he cannot travel from India without permission of the Court.
With these observations, a direction is issued to the trial Court to issue "No Objection Certificate" as prayed, for securing the passport by the petitioner herein.
Sd/-
JUDGE VMB