An acquitted individual should not be denied a passport solely due to a pending appeal against the acquittal.

ORDER :

ILESH J. VORA, J.

1. Rule. Learned APP Ms.Divyangna Jhala waives service of notice of rule for the respondent – State and learned advocate Mr. Kshitij Amin waives service of notice of rule for the respondent No.3 – Regional Passport Officer.

2. By way of present application, the applicant has prayed to quash and set aside the communications raising objections regarding the pendency of the criminal case against the present applicant and also to direct the respondent No.3 to issue passport to the petitioner and also to permit the present applicant to travel abroad in the interest of justice.

3. Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the applicant was accused No.39 in Sessions Case no. 180 of 2002 and the learned Sessions Court acquitted the present applicant vide judgment and order dated 30.07.2012 and against the said judgment and order of acquittal, the State has preferred the captioned Criminal Appeal, which has been admitted by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 06.05.2013 and is pending for final disposal.

3.1. Learned advocate further submits that the applicant has filed an application to the Passport Authority for issuance of a passport on 24.02.2023 and the Passport Authority raised objection dated 29.04.2023 stating that on processing the application, it has come to know that a criminal case is pending against the present application as per the Police Verification Report. The applicant again applied for the issuance of the passport and the Passport Authority raised the same objection by referring the Criminal Appeal Nos.1807 of 2012 and 438 of 2013.

3.2. Learned advocate further submits that the applicant is a permanent resident of the address mentioned in the cause title and residing with his family. The applicant possesses immovable and immovable properties. That the applicant is an employee of Visnagar Taluka Majur Sahkari Mandali Ltd. at Visnagar, District Mehsana. The applicant’s son is currently residing in Canada and daughter is residing in Australia.

3.3. Learned advocate further submits that the co-accused, who has been convicted by the learned Trial Court and who has filed the criminal appeal before this Hon’ble Court and this Hon’ble Court has relaxed the condition and permitted him to visit abroad and the present applicant has been acquitted by the learned Trial Court and therefore, considering the above facts and circumstances, the present application may be allowed.

4. Learned APP appearing for the respondent - State and learned advocate Mr. Kshitij Amin appearing for the respondent No. 3 – Regional Passport Authority have objected the present application; however, have submitted that the appropriate order may be passed.

5. We have heard learned advocates for the respective parties and have considered the averments made in the application and also found that the present applicant has been acquitted by the learned Trial Court and against the order of acquittal, the State has filed the captioned criminal appeal before this Court, which is pending. The applicant is having immovable and movable properties and has produced proof regarding the immovable properties. We are of the opinion that the arguments of the learned advocate for the applicant requires consideration and hence, the present application is allowed.

6. The concerned authority is hereby directed to issue clearance certificate as well as passport to the applicant for a period of five years.

7. In view of the above, the present application stands disposed of. Direct service is permitted.