Point of Law : Release of passport - Since criminal proceedings are pending against the petitioner, the apprehension of the 2nd respondent that he would abscond and not be available for trial also requires to be considered.

ORDER :

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question order dated 02-03-2022 passed in C.C.No.7559 of 2019 by which, the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore rejects the application of the petitioner for release of his passport.

2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition, as borne out from the records, are as follows:-

On 26-12-2018 a case is registered against six accused for offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC on a complaint registered by one Vaitheeswaran S, Group Chief Executive Officer of MEMG International India Private Limited. After completion of investigation, the police filed a preliminary charge sheet in C.C.No.7559 of 2019 against five persons mentioned therein and others for offences punishable under Sections 120B, 406, 408, 409, 465, 467, 468, 471, 477A, 506, 201 and 420 read with Section 34 of the IPC. Later, on further investigation, the police filed first additional charge sheet on 14.09.2019 adding accused 6 to 9. At this point in time, the petitioner was not arrayed as an accused.

3. A further report was made on further investigation and the police laid a second additional charge sheet on 11-01-2021. It is here the name of the petitioner figures and is arrayed as accused No.10. Several proceedings have gone on since then. The petitioner being aggrieved by the aforesaid proceedings had preferred Writ Petition No.21035 of 2021 and this Court on 09-12-2021 has stayed all further proceedings in C.C.No.7559 of 2019 against the petitioner. On 20-12-2021 the petitioner was enlarged on bail by imposing two conditions viz., the petitioner was directed to execute a personal bond for Rs.1,00,000/-and furnish such documents of surety.

4. The present case concerns an application made by the petitioner before the trial Court seeking release of his passport on the ground that the son of the petitioner studies in a school at Paris – Sports Etudes Concept and was attending classes virtually. Since classes have now started physically, the petitioner wanted to accompany his son for getting him admitted in the school. This application is rejected by the trial Court. It is the rejection of the application that is called in question in the present proceedings. Therefore, these proceedings concern with the rejection of release of passport of the petitioner and not any other issue that is pending in plethora of cases between the parties.

5. Heard Sri.Ashok Haranahalli, learned senior counsel along with Sri.Srinivas Rao.S.S., learned counsel for petitioner and Smt.K.P.Yashoda, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and Sri.S.K.Venkata Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

6. Learned senior counsel Sri Ashok Haranahalli would submit that several proceedings between the parties are pending consideration. The Apex Court has stayed all further proceedings in other cases. The case at hand is not an offshoot of those cases, but an independent case of an application, where the passport of the petitioner is seized, not impounded by the police and there is grave urgency for the petitioner to leave the country and get his son admitted to the school at France.

7. On the other hand, the learned counsel Sri S.K.Venkata Reddy appearing for the 2nd respondent/de-facto complainant, by filing elaborate objections, would contend that if the petitioner is let off, he would run away from the country and funds which have been misappropriated by the petitioner along with others would be parked elsewhere, thereby it would become difficult to secure presence of the petitioner in future, since several proceedings are pending consideration between the parties. Therefore, the order rejecting release of passport does not call for any interference.

8. The learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State would also toe the lines of the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent.

9. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by