Bombay High Court
Samuel Miranda vs Union Of India And Anr on 10 April, 2024
Author: Revati Mohite Dere
Bench: Revati Mohite Dere
2024:BHC-AS:17907-DB
49. WPST 5623-2024.doc
Digitally signed
by RUPALI
RUPALI RAJESH
RAJESH WAKODIKAR
WAKODIKAR Date:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
2024.04.18
17:23:15 +0530
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION (ST) NO. 5623 OF 2024
Samuel Miranda
Indian Inhabitant, Aged - 36 years,
Residing at Marshal Villa, Tony
Compound, Church Pakhadi,
Sahar Village, Vile Parle (E),
Mumbai - 400099. ...Petitioner
Versus
1. The Union of India
(Through the Addl. Superintendent of
Police, Central Bureau of Investigation,
5B, 5th floor, CBI Building, CGO
Complex, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi - 10003)
2. Bureau of Immigration
Ministry of Home Affairs,
Government of India,
(Through the Commissioner
(Immigration), East Block, VIII,
Level V, Sector-1, R.K.Puram,
New Delhi - 110066.
3. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondents
Ms. Lakshmi Raman for the Petitioner.
Mr. Shreeram Shirsat, Spl.P.P a/w Mr. Nishad Mokashi for the
Respondent No.1-CBI.
Wakodikar 1/11
::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2024 23:32:43 :::
49. WPST 5623-2024.doc
Ms. A.S.Gotad, A.P.P for the Respondent-State.
CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE &
MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATE : 10th APRIL, 2024
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Revati Mohite Dere, J.) :
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith with the consent of the parties and is taken up for final disposal.
3. By the aforesaid petition, the petitioner seeks quashing and setting aside of the Look Out Circular (`LOC') issued as against him, at the behest of the respondent No.1-CBI.
4. On 14th June 2020, Sushant Singh Rajput committed suicide at his residence at Bandra. Pursuant thereto, the Mumbai Police registered an Accidental Death Report (ADR) and Wakodikar 2/11 ::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2024 23:32:43 :::
49. WPST 5623-2024.doc commenced inquiry under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (`Cr.P.C'), to ascertain the cause of death.
5. It appears that during the course of inquiry, the Mumbai Police recorded the statements of several persons. It appears that during the pendency of the said inquiry, conducted by the Mumbai Police, Sushant Singh Rajput's father-Krishna Kishore Singh lodged an FIR with the Rajeev Nagar Police Station, Patna, which was registered vide C.R. No. 241/2020 as against the aforesaid petitioner and others under Sections 341, 342, 380, 406, 420, 306, 506 and 122 of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC'). Considering that the Mumbai Police were conducting an inquiry and since an FIR was registered in Patna, though the cause of action had arisen in Mumbai, one of the co-accused i.e. Rhea Chakraborty filed a transfer petition, being Transfer Petition (Cri.) No. 225/2020 in the Supreme Court. In the interregnum, pending the Transfer Petition before the Supreme Court, the State of Bihar handed over the investigation of C.R. No. 241/2020 to Wakodikar 3/11 ::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2024 23:32:43 :::
49. WPST 5623-2024.doc the Central Bureau of Investigation (`CBI'), to investigate into the death of Sushant Singh Rajput. The Transfer Petition (Cri.) No. 225/2020 preferred by Rhea Chakraborty before the Supreme Court was decided on 19th August 2020. The Apex Court directed the CBI to investigate the case i.e. into the death of Sushant Singh Rajput. During the course of investigation, the CBI summoned several persons including the petitioner, against whom an FIR was registered and recorded their statements during the course of investigation.
6. The petitioner was working as a House Manager with the late Bollywood actor - Sushant Singh Rajput, prior to his demise. It appears that in addition to the aforesaid C.R., the petitioner is also arraigned as an accused in one NDPS case alongwith two others i.e. Rhea Chakraborty and Showik Chakraborty. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has been released on bail in the said NDPS case. It appears that the petitioner is required to intimate the NCB Officers, Wakodikar 4/11 ::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2024 23:32:43 :::
49. WPST 5623-2024.doc his travel details alongwith itinerary, if he travels overseas.
7. Learned Counsel for petitioner submitted that the LOC opened was issued as against the petitioner in the year 2020 and that till date, the police have not filed any report. It is submitted that the LOC cannot be issued indefinitely, more particularly, when the petitioner had co-operated with the investigation and had attended the office of the CBI, as and when called. It is submitted that keeping the LOC pending for more than 3½ years, has infringed the petitioner's right to travel abroad, and as such the same clearly violates his fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution India, to travel freely.
8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner has roots in the society and as such, the question of the petitioner absconding or evading arrest, also does not arise.
Wakodikar 5/11 ::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2024 23:32:43 :::
49. WPST 5623-2024.doc
9. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on the Judgment of this Court dated 22 nd February, 2024, passed in Criminal Writ Petition No. 3135 of 2023 and other connected Writ Petitions.
10. Mr. Shirsat, learned Spl. P.P. appearing for the respondent No.1 - CBI, opposed the petition. He also questioned the maintainability of the petition before this Court.
11. Learned Spl.P.P has filed an affidavit of the CBI which is at page 91 of the petition. In the said affidavit, the maintainability of the petition has also been questioned. Learned Spl.P.P has also tendered a copy of the 'LOC' issued at the behest of the respondent-CBI against the petitioner.
12. Perused the papers as well as the 'LOC' tendered by Mr. Shirsat, learned Spl.P.P appearing for the respondent No.1- CBI. The petitioner has been arraigned as an accused in an FIR registered by the respondent No.1-CBI i.e. C.R.No.241 of 2022 Wakodikar 6/11 ::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2024 23:32:43 :::
49. WPST 5623-2024.doc initially with the Rajeev Nagar Police Station, Patna and subsequently, transferred to the CBI and re-numbered as RC2242020S0001 on 6th August, 2020, at AC-VI Police Station, Delhi.
13. The said FIR has been registered as against the petitioner alongwith other co-accused i.e. Showik Indrajit Chakraborty, Lt. Colonel Indrajit Chakraborty, Sandhya Indrajit Chakraborty, Rhea Chakraborty and Shruti Modi. By Judgment and Order dated 22nd February, 2024, passed in Criminal Writ Petition No. 3135 of 2023 and other connected writ petitions, we have already observed that this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the aforesaid petition, seeking quashing of the LOC and as such, it is not necessary to again go into the said objection raised by the learned Spl. P.P. appearing for Respondent No.1 - CBI. Para No.14 of the said Judgment reads thus :
"14. Even today, learned Spl. P.Ps raised the question of jurisdiction. It is pertinent to note, that in the FIR registered by the respondent-CBI, in the Column `Place of Occurrence', the places mentioned are Wakodikar 7/11 ::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2024 23:32:43 :::
49. WPST 5623-2024.doc `Mumbai, Patna and other places' . It is not in dispute that the alleged offence which is being investigated by CBI has taken place in Mumbai and definitely a great part of the cause of action has arisen in Mumbai. We, having considered the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Nainchandra Majithia (Supra), in particular paras 22, 27,37 and 38 and Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. (Supra), in particular paras 10 and 11, do not find any merit in the objection raised by the learned Spl. P.Ps, that the aforesaid petitions should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. We hold that the petitions are maintainable before us, in Mumbai."
14. We have perused the LOC, issued as against the petitioner on 7th August, 2020. It appears that the said LOC is issued only on the basis of the registration of an FIR. No apprehension that the petitioner will evade arrest or will not be available for trial, or is likely to abscond, or any other bonafide reason been spelt out, in the said LOC. Infact, if Clause (IV-d) is seen, the said LOC was issued for a period of 12 months in terms of the MHA Order dated No.25016/31/2010 dated 27/10/2010. It is clearly stated that the retention of LOC cannot exceed 12 months/one year and that requests for renewals are to be made by the competent authority from time to time on yearly basis. Wakodikar 8/11 ::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2024 23:32:43 :::
49. WPST 5623-2024.doc
15. Nothing was brought to our notice in the LOC, reflecting the 'reason' for issuing of LOC, except registration of an FIR and setting out the gist of the FIR. Nor has anything been brought on record for continuance of the LOC. Neither has the respondent No.1 - CBI placed before us any subsequent request made by the CBI for continuation/renewal of the LOC, after the expiry of one year. Admittedly, till date no report has been filed by the CBI i.e. either a charge-sheet or a closure report. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has joined the investigation and has co-operated with the same. We have already allowed the Petition of the co-accused in the same case, and have quashed the LOC issued as against him.
16. We have noted in para No.23 of our Judgment dated 22nd February, 2024, as under :
"23. LOCs cannot be issued as a matter of course, but only when there is/are reason/(s) to issue the same i.e. when a person deliberately evades arrest or does not appear in the trial Court or for any other reason.Wakodikar 9/11 ::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2024 23:32:43 :::
49. WPST 5623-2024.doc An LOC is a coercive measure to make the person surrender and as such interferes with the person's right of personal liberty and free movement and curtails the fundamental right of an individual to travel, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution."
17. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has roots in the society. The right to travel is a fundamental right and cannot be curtailed except according to due procedure established by law. Under the Format for issuance of LOC itself, 'reasons' must be given, in respect to the apprehension of a person evading arrest or otherwise. Although there are Consolidated Guidelines for issuing of LOC, even under the said Consolidated Guidelines, the LOC is expected to be periodically reviewed, as to whether grounds exists to continue the same.
18. Considering the aforesaid, the petition is allowed and as such, the LOC issued as against the petitioner, is quashed and set-aside.
Wakodikar 10/11 ::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2024 23:32:43 :::
49. WPST 5623-2024.doc
19. Needless to state that it is always open for the authorities to issue LOC against the petitioner, if the occasion so arises in future.
20. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms and the petition stands disposed of accordingly.
21. All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this order.
MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J. REVATI MOHITE DERE, J. Wakodikar 11/11 ::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2024 23:32:43 :::