Gujarat High Court
Chitrak Satishbhai Shah vs State Of Gujarat on 24 July, 2014
Author: Ravi R.Tripathi
Bench: Ravi R.Tripathi
R/CR.MA/9837/2014 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR MODIFICATION OF ORDERS) NO. 9837 of 2014
In CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 7394 of 2010
================================================================
CHITRAK SATISHBHAI SHAH....Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT....Respondent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR PARTHIV B SHAH, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR LB DABHI ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI
Date : 24/07/2014
ORAL ORDER
The present application is filed praying that, "28(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to delete the condition no. 5(c) and 5(d) imposed by this Hon'ble Court in Misc. Criminal Application No. 7394 of 2010 vide order dtd. 13.08.2010, in the interest of justice;
IN THE ALTERNATIVE 28(B) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to relax the condition no. 5(c) and 5(d) imposed by this Hon'ble Court in Misc. Criminal Application No. 7394 of 2010 vide order dtd. 13.08.2010, for the period from 15.7.2014 to 30.8.2014, in the interest of justice."
2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Parthiv B. Shah for the applicant. Rule. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. L.B. Dabhi waives service of Rule.
Page 1 of 4R/CR.MA/9837/2014 ORDER
3. Learned advocate Mr. Parthiv B. Shah for the applicant submitted that after the order dated 13th August 2010 was passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 7394 of 2010, the applicant has undertaken tours to various countries, at least twelve times, and the applicant has not given any opportunity to the Investigating Officer to make any complaint because he has complied with the conditions scrupulously.
4. Learned advocate Mr. Parthiv B. Shah for the applicant pointed out a Notification of Ministry of External Affairs dated 25th August 1993, relevant part of which reads as under:
"G.S.R. 570 (E). - In exercise of the process conferred by clause (a) of Section 22 of the Passport Act 1967 (15 of 1967) and in suppression of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of External Affairs No. G.S.R. 298 (E), dated the 14th April, 1976, the Central Government, being of the opinion that it is necessary in public interest to do so, hereby exempts citizens of India 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, from the operation of the provisions of Clause (f) of sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the said Act, subject tot he following conditions, namely:-
(a) the passport to be issued to every such citizen shall be issued -
(i) for the period specified in order of the court referred to above, if the court specifies a period for which the passport has to be issued; or
(ii) if no period either for the issue of the passport or for the travel abroad is specified in such order, the passport shall be issued for a period one year;
(iii) if such order gives permission to travel abroad for a period less than one year, but does not specify the period validity of the passport, the passport shall be issued for one year;"
5. Learned advocate for the applicant submitted that in light of the aforesaid Page 2 of 4 R/CR.MA/9837/2014 ORDER Notification, the passport of the applicant will be renewable for one year, and the time consumed in making an application to this Court, and seeking permission with a direction to release the passport by the Investigating Officer, and then apply for visa, and to undertake the tour consumes considerable time. Learned advocate further submitted that in some of the countries, one of the condition is that the person shall have a valid passport for a particular period, and taking into consideration the time consumed in the aforesaid process of getting permission from the Honourable Courts, normally that condition will not be possible to comply with. Therefore, the present application is filed seeking deletion of condition No. 5(c) and 5(d).
6. Learned advocate for the applicant relied upon an order of this Court in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 4369 of 2009 in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 5048 of 2005 (Coram: Honourable Mr. Justice R.P. Dholakia) dated 11th May 2009. Learned advocate invited the attention of the Court to the relevant part of that order, and requested that a similar order be passed, as in that case the Court was pleased to delete the condition No.4(g), and was pleased to suspend the condition No. 4(f) for a period of two months, and the remaining conditions were retained unaltered.
7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. L.B. Dabhi submitted that the condition No.5(c) and 5(d) cannot be said to be harsh and unusual. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that they are usual conditions, which are imposed in the matter of granting bail on any person like the applicant, and therefore, the present application is not required to be entertained at least for the purpose of deletion or suspension of condition No. 5(c) and 5(d).
8. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. L.B. Dabhi is not able to point out any singular incident of breach of the conditions imposed by this Court, by order dated 13th August 2010. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. L.B. Dabhi is also not able to dislodge the submissions made by the learned Page 3 of 4 R/CR.MA/9837/2014 ORDER advocate for the applicant that a considerable period has passed after the passing of the order on 13th August 2010, and the applicant has undertaken at least twelve foreign tours during this period. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor also could not substantiate his request for not entertaining this application, as there is no justifiable and acceptable reason for the same. Lastly, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that in the event the Court is willing to delete the conditions No. 5(c) and 5(d), appropriate directions may be issued so as to see that the investigation against the applicant is not hampered, and that will serve the ends of justice.
9. Taking into consideration the submissions made by learned advocate for the applicant, taking into consideration the contents of the Notification aforesaid, and taking into consideration the order passed by this Court in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 4369 of 2009 in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 5048 of 2005 dated 11th may 2009, this Court is of the opinion that it will be in the fitness of things, if condition No.5(c) is modified. The applicant will be under an obligation to submit a written intimation to the Investigating Officer along with the itinerary at least one week before his departure, and on return to India, within one week, he shall report back in writing to the Investigating Officer about his return to India. Similarly, condition No. 5(d) is also modified to the effect that in the event the applicant is to leave the limits of State of Gujarat, and moving within the country, the same should be done with a written intimation to the Investigating Officer at least three days in advance.
With the aforesaid directions, this application is allowed. Rule is made absolute with no order as to costs. Direct service is permitted.
(RAVI R.TRIPATHI, J.) sndevus Page 4 of 4