Delhi High Court - Orders
Narender Singh vs Cbi on 15 March, 2022
Author: Prateek Jalan
Bench: Prateek Jalan
$~12 (2022 Cause List)
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.A. 352/2012
NARENDER SINGH ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Nitin Saluja, Mr. Ramandeep
Bawa and Mr. Anubhav Singh,
Advocates.
versus
CBI ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Mridul Jain, Spl. PP, CBI
[Mob.9810302811].
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
ORDER
% 15.03.2022 The proceedings in the matter have been conducted through hybrid mode [physical and virtual hearing].
CRL.M.A. 19393/2021 (seeking release of passport)
1. This is an application for release of the passport of the appellant. The appellant's passport was deposited with the Trial Court as a condition for grant of bail. He has subsequently been convicted of the offence under Section 120B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Sections 7, 12, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2)/12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, by virtue of the impugned judgment dated 29.02.2012. By the order on sentence dated 05.03.2012, the appellant was sentenced to simple imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs. 40,000/-.
2. By an order dated 27.03.2012 passed in the present appeal, the Signature Not Verified Digitally signed By:SHITU NAGPAL Signing Date:16.03.2022 11:54:57 CRL.A. 352/2012 Page 1 of 3 appellant's application for suspension of sentence was allowed, noting that he is already on bail until 05.04.2012. He was directed to furnish a personal bond in the sum of ₹ 25,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.
3. The petitioner earlier moved an application for release of his passport (Crl.M.A.18958/2012), which was disposed of on 26.04.2013, with the observation that the appellant would be entitled to take his passport after obtaining the permission of the concerned Trial Court as and when he was required to travel abroad.
4. The contention of Mr. Nitin Saluja, learned counsel for the appellant is that the release of passport is required in order to enable the appellant to assure prospective employers of his ability to travel.
5. I am prima facie not impressed with this submission. Mr. Saluja does not dispute that the appellant would be required to take permission of the Trial Court on each occasion that he wishes to travel. To this extent, it appears to me that the appellant can always approach the Trial Court for permission to travel and for release of his passport simultaneously. The availability of his passport and his ability to travel are inter-connected and the question of any additional prejudice caused to the appellant by reason of deposit of his passport does not arise.
6. However, Mr. Saluja submits that the appellant is entitled to release of his passport for exercise of his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The only judgment cited by Mr. Saluja is that of the Kerala High Court in Latef Bin Abdul Jamil vs. State of Kerala 2014 SCC OnLine Kerala 9524 [Crl. M.C. No. 2949 of 2014, decided on 03.06.2014]. However, it is clear from paragraph 7 of the judgment that Signature Not Verified Digitally signed By:SHITU NAGPAL Signing Date:16.03.2022 11:54:57 CRL.A. 352/2012 Page 2 of 3 the appellant, in that case, had already undergone the substantive sentence imposed upon him, which is not the situation in the present case. He seeks some time to cite authorities for his proposition that the passport cannot be held, even in a situation where the passport holder has been convicted of an offence and the sentence is suspended.
7. List on 28.04.2022.
PRATEEK JALAN, J MARCH 15, 2022 'vp'/ Signature Not Verified Digitally signed By:SHITU NAGPAL Signing Date:16.03.2022 11:54:57 CRL.A. 352/2012 Page 3 of 3