Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Daya Chaudhary, J.
Bikramjeet Virk – Petitioner
Versus
Central Bureau of Investigation – Respondent
CRM-M No.20538 of 2018
Decided On : 13-07-2018
PASSPORT - Criminal Procedure - Section 482 Cr.P.C - Emigrants Act, 1983 - [Section 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC and Section 24 of the Emigrants Act, 1983] - The judgment discusses the petitioner's application for release of his passport in a criminal case and the court's authority to impose conditions on bail, considering the right to travel abroad under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The court emphasizes the distinction between seizing and impounding a passport, and the power of the passport authority under the Passport Act, 1967. The judgment sets aside the impugned order and directs the petitioner to seek necessary permission from the concerned court if intending to go abroad.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought release of his passport in a criminal case, arguing that the condition to surrender his passport violated his right to travel abroad under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The trial court had dismissed his application, citing the stage of the case and the possibility of the accused fleeing from judicial proceedings.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the trial court's order directing the surrender of the passport indefinitely amounted to impounding the passport, which is within the authority of the passport authority under the Passport Act, 1967. The court set aside the impugned order and directed the petitioner to seek necessary permission from the concerned court if intending to go abroad.
Issues: The issues revolved around the petitioner's right to travel abroad, the trial court's authority to impose conditions on bail, and the distinction between seizing and impounding a passport.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the power to impound a passport lies with the passport authority under the Passport Act, 1967, and not with the criminal court. It highlighted the need for the petitioner to seek necessary permission from the concerned court if intending to go abroad.
Final Decision: The impugned order was set aside, and the petitioner was directed to seek necessary permission from the concerned court if intending to go abroad.
DAYA CHAUDHARY, J.
1. Petitioner-Bikramjeet Virk has approached this Court by way of filing the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C for setting aside impugned order dated 03.01.2018 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh (Designated Special Court for CBI cases at Chandigarh), whereby, the application filed by him for release of his passport in case FIR No.RCCHG20140019 dated 01.12.2014 registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC and Section 24 of the Emigrants Act, 1983 has been dismissed.
2. Briefly, the facts of the case, as mentioned in the petition, are that while granting regular bail to the petitioner on 17.01.2017 by the trial Court, a condition was imposed to surrender his passport before the trial Court and accordingly he surrendered his passport.
3. Petitioner moved an application for release of his passport which was dismissed vide order dated 03.01.2018 on the ground that the case is at the initial stage and examination of prosecution witnesses is yet to commence after framing of charge and no ground is made out to modify the condition of bail requiring the accused petitioner to surrender his passport at this stage.
4. Said order dated 03.01.2018 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh has been challenged before this Court by raising various grounds.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is having experience of business activities in relation to manpower recruitment. He being engaged with the foreign recruitment has to visit foreign companies for business and is facing a lot of difficulty on account of his passport having been in custody of the Court. Learned counsel also submits that as per Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the right to go abroad cannot be deprived of except to the procedure prescribed under law. Learned counsel also submits that the impugned order has been passed without any application of judicious mind and hence, the same is liable to be set aside. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is to apply for permission to visit foreign country and for that, the passport is required to be submitted before the concerned authority. The reasonable conditions can be imposed that the petitioner can leave the country with permission of the trial Court but by surrendering the passport before the trial Court, the same is detrimental to his interest and the same is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble the Apex Court in case Suresh Nanda vs C.B.I 2008(1) RCR (Criminal) 897, judgment of this Court in case Gaurav Kirpal vs Central Bureau of Investigation (CRR No.3672 of 2017, decided on 16.11.2017), judgment of Madras High Court in case Kakulamarri Kalyan Srinivasa Rao vs The Central Bureau of Investigation, Bank Securities and Frauds Cell rep. by its Superintendent of Police, Bangalore, Karnataka 2017(3) MLJ (Criminal) 97, judgment of Kerala High Court in case A.V. Mohammed Rafeek vs The Union of India (Crl. M.C. No.1734 of 2011, decided on 16.06.2011) and judgment of Delhi High Court in case Bina K. Ramani vs State (Crl. M.C. No.3605 of 2009, decided on 05.02.2010) in support of his arguments.
7. Mr. Sukhdeep Singh Sandhu, learned counsel for the respondent-CBI has filed reply in the Court and the same is taken on record.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has not made proper application for modification of terms and conditions for release of his passport and he is at liberty to move application for release of his passport with certain terms and conditions. The application moved by the petitioner has rightly been dismissed by taking into consideration the evidence which has come against him on record during investigation. There is a possibility of his running from the Court proceedings. Learned counsel also su
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
