Allahabad High Court
Chandra Shekhar vs State Of U.P. And on 5 April, 2023
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 91 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 8739 of 2022 Petitioner :- Chandra Shekhar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Milan Mishra,Vikas Chauhan Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.
Heard Sri M.S. Arya, Sri Pankaj Kumar Singh and Sri O.P. Yadav, Advocates holding brief of Sri Ram Milan Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the State.
By means of the present petition the petitioner has challenged the orders dated 11.10.2021 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 8, Saharanpur in Sessions Trial No. 212 of 2018 (State Vs. Chandra Shekhar), P.S. Kotwali Dehat, District Saharanpur, Sessions Trial No. 214 of 2018 (State Vs. Chandra Shekhar), P.S. Kotwali Dehat, District Saharanpur, Sessions Trial No. 216 of 2018 (State Vs. Chandra Shekhar), P.S. Kotwali Dehat, District Saharanpur by which applications of the petitioner for permission of issuance of passport were rejected on the ground pendency of criminal cases, as well as on the ground that offence in questions are related to public importance and also effect on law and order.
In one of the impugned order dated 10.01.2022 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, First, Saharanapur in Case Crime No. 154 of 2017 (State Vs. Chandra Shekhar and Others), P.S. Kotwali Dehat, District Saharanpur application of the applicant was rejected on the ground that issuance of passport is administrative work, therefore, the application is not maintainability.
From perusal of record it appears that petitioner has already been released on bail in Case Crime Nos. 156 of 2017, 162 of 2017, 163 of 2017 and 154 of 2017, all registered in Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Saharanpur. It appears that all these four cases registered at same police station in the same year and appears to be for public protest and damage to the property and the petitioner is a political persons being the President of Azad Samaj Party, Kansi Ram. In support of his case the petitioner has also relied upon the order dated 09.01.2019 passed by this Court in Application U/s. 482 No. 33332 of 2017 (Ravindra Nath Bhargav Vs. State of U.P.) in that case the Hon'ble Court after relying upon the judgment of Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597 has observed that right to travel is a fundamental right and same can be restricted as per the provision of Passport Act in appropriate cases where offences lodged against the applicant is grave and heinous in nature.
Having considered the rival contention of learned counsel for the parties and perusal of record it is clear that petitioner is a political person and therefore, implication in cases for political motive cannot be ruled out. So far as the present four cases are concerned none of them appears to be grave and heinous in nature, therefore, the impugned orders do not appear to be correct. Purpose and restriction of Passport Act is not to restrict an Indian citizen from getting passport and travel abroad but the same is to impose reasonable restriction, so that hard core criminal may not use passport as the instrument to run away from country so as to save him from clutches of law.
In view of the fact that the impugned orders dated 11.10.2021 in Sessions Trial No. 212 of 2018, in Sessions Trial No. 214 of 2018, in Sessions Trial No. 216 of 2018 and order dated 10.01.2022 in Case Crime No. 154 of 2017 are set aside with the following directions:-
(i) Applicant shall submit his undertaking along with his affidavit within three weeks from the date of this order before the trial court concerned clearly mentioning that he will not leave India during pendency of his trial without prior permission of the trial court and he shall appear on each dates in the trial before the trial cour.
(ii) In case the aforesaid undertaking is filed by the applicant as directed above, the trial court on demand by the applicant shall issue certified copy of undertaking given by the applicant within a week to him.
(iii) The applicant shall move a fresh application along with certified copy of this order and his aforesaid undertaking before the Passport Officer/authority concerned for issue of his passport.
(iv) In case such application is moved by the applicant, the Passport Officer/authority concerned considering the case of the applicant afresh in the light of observation made by this Court in this order as well as contents of undertaking of the applicant, shall decide the application of the applicant in accordance with law within three weeks from the date of moving application by the applicant before him.
It is further clarified that the petitioner will obtain permission in other pending cases separately from the concerned courts.
With the aforesaid directions the petition stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 5.4.2023 Vikram