IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Krishan Pahal, J.
Ranjeet – Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. – Opposite Party
Criminal Misc Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 872 of 2024
Decided On : 13-02-2024
Anticipatory Bail - Passport Act - 12 of Passport Act, 1967 - Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. - 15 of Passport Act, 1967 - 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - 19(1)(c) of the Act - Section 438 Cr.P.C. - Section 439 Cr.P.C. - Satpal Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2018) 13 SCC 813 - Pratibha Manchanda and another Vs. State of Haryana and another (2023) 8 SCC 181
Fact of the Case:
The applicant was accused of procuring three passports by altering his name and parentage, leading to charges under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Passport Act. The applicant claimed innocence and argued that the FIR was lodged without mandatory previous sanction of the Central government as provided under Section 15 of the Passports Act, 1967.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the word 'prosecution' in Section 15 of the Passports Act, 1967 does not apply to the institution of a First Information Report (FIR) and investigation. It held that no sanction is required to investigate the matter and rejected the anticipatory bail application.
Issues: The issues revolved around the interpretation of Section 15 of the Passports Act, 1967 and the requirement of previous sanction for the institution of an FIR. The court also considered the satisfaction required for granting protection under Section 438 Cr.P.C. and the balance between individual rights and public interest in anticipatory bail applications.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the word 'prosecution' in Section 15 of the Passports Act, 1967 and clarified that no sanction is required for the investigation at the stage of FIR or during the investigation. It also emphasized the balance between individual rights and public interest in anticipatory bail applications.
Final Decision: The anticipatory bail application was found devoid of merits and was rejected. The court's observations were limited to the disposal of the anticipatory bail application and had no bearing on the merits of the case.
JUDGMENT :
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Harsh Vardhan Singh, learned counsel for applicant as well as Sri Ram Mohit Yadav, learned A.G.A. for State and also perused the material available on record.
3. The present application for anticipatory bail has been filed for protection in regard to FIR/Case Crime No. 444 of 2023, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. and 12 of Passport Act, 1967, P.S.-Barhalganj, District- Gorakhpur.
PROSECUTION STORY:
4. The FIR was instituted by the SI Gyan Prakash Shukla PS Barhalganj, Distt. Gorakhpur on 26.06.2023 with the allegations that it has come to his knowledge that RANJEET s/o Ram Bahadur has procured three passports i.e. No. K3464309 as Ranjeet Sahani s/o Ram Bahadur Sahani, No. P4364782 as Ranjeet Nishad s/o Bahadur Nishad and No. W8305151 as Ranjeet Nishad s/o Bahadur Nishad.
RIVAL CONTENTIONS: Arguments for Applicant:
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the he is maliciously being prosecuted in the present case due to ulterior motive and has the apprehension of his arrest. The applicant has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged by the prosecution. Learned counsel has next stated that the informant is the Sub Inspector and he has not divulged the person from whom he had received the said information. The applicant is an illiterate and rustic person and for the sake of employment he had got his passport applications filed through broker and the discrepancy, if any, is due to his negligence.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that the passports have been issued after due enquiry and investigation. The police had demanded bribe from him and after the refusal to grease their palm, the instant FIR has been instituted.
7. It is also argued by the counsel for the applicant that after getting the knowledge of the said multiplicity of applications for passport, he had given an application for the closure of the File on 10.04.2023. The same is filed as Annexure-4 to the affidavit filed with the anticipatory bail application. The instant FIR has been lodged two months thereafter. The files of the applicant have been closed and the same have been filed as Annexure-5 to the affidavit filed with the bail application, as such nothing remains against the applicant.
8. It is further argued that a letter for apology has been sent by the applicant to the Regional Passport Officer, Lucknow on 04.07.2023 which is filed as annexure-7 to the affidavit filed with the anticipatory bail application.
9. Learned Counsel for the applicant has vehemently argued that the instant FIR has no legs to stand as it has been lodged without mandatory previous sanction of the Central government as provided under Section 15 of the Passports Act, 1967. The said provision is as under:
10. Learned counsel for the applicant has further specified that the applicant had filed a criminal Miscellaneous Writ No. 17320 of 2023 which was dismissed for want of prosecution and not on merits. There is no iota of evidence against him and he has no criminal antecedents.
Arguments for State:
11. Learned AGA Shri. Ram Mohit Yadav has stated that the applicant is an imposter as he has procured three passports by altering his name and parentage altogether bearing No.’s K3464309 as Ranjeet Sahani s/o Ram Bahadur Sahani, P4364782 as Ranjeet Nishad s/o Bahadur Nishad and W8305151 as Ranjeet Nishad s/o Bahadur Nishad while his Aadhar card reveals his name to be RANJEET s/o Ram Bahadur. The applicant has obtained the passports by not only suppressing the information but has produced fake and doctored documents and got them issued.
12. It is further argued by learned AGA that ther
P. Prathapachandran Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, Ernakula, 1999 CrLJ 2002 (Ker)
Satpal Singh Vs. State of Punjab
Pratibha Manchanda and another Vs. State of Haryana and another (2023) 8 SCC 181
The interpretation of the word 'prosecution' in Section 15 of the Passports Act, 1967 and the requirement of previous sanction for the institution of an FIR were central to the court's decision.
The main legal point established is that the necessity of custodial interrogation and the presence of evidence linking foreign travel to illegal activities are crucial factors in determining the gran....
Anticipatory bail may be granted where the prosecution fails to demonstrate the necessity for custodial interrogation or present sufficient evidence of ongoing criminal activity.
Accused's passport must be renewed for ten years, subject to trial court's conditions for travel abroad based on established guidelines.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.