Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 852 (BOM)

Vilas v. Regional Passport Officer, Nagpur

2014-04-01

B.R.GAVAI, C.V.BHADANG

body2014
JUDGMENT B.R. GAVAI, J. 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, the matter is take up for hearing finally. 3. The petitioner has approached this Court for a direction to the respondent Regional Passport Officer, Nagpur to issue passport to the petitioner during the pendency of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner. 4. A criminal case for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 294, 506-B IPC was registered against the petitioner. The petitioner was granted bail during the pendency of the criminal proceeding. The petitioner was also granted permission to go abroad. The petitioner had accordingly, went abroad and returned back to face the trial. The petitioner came to be acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code but was convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 294 and 506-B of the Indian Penal Code vide order dated 27.8.2012. 5. Being aggrieved thereby the petitioner has preferred appeal before this Court and the same is pending before the learned Single Bench of this court. 6. During the pendency of the said appeal, the petitioner has applied for renewal of the passport. However, the authority vide order dated 7.2.2014 refused to renew the passport as the permission of the Court, before whom the criminal proceedings were pending, was not obtained by the petitioner. As per the said communication and in view of the notification dated 25.8.1993 issued by the Union of India, it is necessary that prior permission of the court before whom the criminal proceedings are pending is necessary. 7. Since the appeal of the petitioner is pending before the learned Single Bench of this Court, the petitioner had filed an application before the learned Single Judge. However, the learned Single Judge vide order dated 3.2.2014 permitted the petitioner to withdraw the same with liberty to take proper proceedings in accordance with law. 8. Left with no alternative, the petitioner has approached this court by way of writ petition in the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 9. Taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner was on bail during the trial and that further he was permitted to go abroad and he had returned back to face trial, we find that the petition deserves to be allowed. Hence, the following order. 9. Taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner was on bail during the trial and that further he was permitted to go abroad and he had returned back to face trial, we find that the petition deserves to be allowed. Hence, the following order. Order The petition is allowed by directing the respondent to renew the passport of the petitioner, if the petitioner complies with all other conditions as required in law. However, it is made clear that in the event, the petitioner desires to travel abroad, the petitioner shall file an appropriate application before the learned Single Bench of this Court which application shall be considered by the learned Single Bench in accordance with law. No order as to costs. Petition allowed.