JUDGMENT

Shukla, J.--1. Heard on I.A. No. 17753/2019, which is an application for condonation of delay.

2. Considering the grounds mentioned in the application and taking into consideration the fact that there is delay of two days, therefore, the delay in filing the present revision petition is condoned.

3. The parties are also heard on admission.

4. The present revision is filed under section 397 read with section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1974, being aggrieved by the order dated 24.4.2019 passed by the Special Judge C.B.I. (Vyapam Cases), Bhopal, M.P., in Sessions Trial No. 1200740/2014 whereby the application filed by the applicant under section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to release the passport of the applicant has been rejected.

5. The facts of the case, in short, are that a case has been registered against the husband of the applicant by a Special Task Force, Bhopal, as Crime No. 539/2013 and the same is pending as Sessions Trial No. 740/2014. Thereafter, the matter was transferred to the C.B.I. which was registered as Crime No. 217-2016(A)/08 for the offences punishable under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120(B) of IPC and also under section 65, 66 of the Information & Technology Act and also under section 3(Gha)1, 2/4 of the M.P. Manyata Prapt Pariksha Adhiniyam, 1937 and under section 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act are also registered.

6. It is not in dispute that no case is registered against the present applicant. She is neither an accused nor a suspect in the said case. Her passport was seized by the respondent Investigating Agency on the ground that her husband was impleaded as an accused in the VYAPAM matters. An application for release of the passport was filed on the ground that her son is studying at University of West Minster, London, United Kingdom since September 2018 and therefore, she wants to visit her son who is all alone.

7. The respondents filed the reply and did not dispute the fact that the present applicant is neither an accused nor a suspect in the said case. It is stated that two passports were seized from the house of the applicant that was of her husband and the present applicant. In fact there was no objection to release of the passport in respect of the applicant.

8. The trial Court rejected the said application only on the ground that her husband has been impleaded as an accused in the aforesaid case and the investigation is still pending.

9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and also considered the reply filed by the respondents. In the present case, it is not in dispute that no case is registered against the present applicant by the respondent C.B.I. in the aforesaid case. The respondent Investigating Agency has also not stated any reason for keeping the passport in the custody so far as the present applicant is concerned. The fact remains that the applicant is neither an accused nor a suspect in the said case. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the applicant is entitled for release of the passport. The Supreme Court in the case of Mrs. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and another - (1978)1 SCC 248 and in the case of Suresh Nanda v. Central Bureau of Investigation - (2008) 3 SCC 674 has held that in absence of any cogent reason, the denial of release of passport of an accused and to visit him abroad is violative of his right as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The reason assigned by the trial Court for refusing to release the passport is not a cogent reason for refusing the same, specially when the present applicant is neither an accused nor a suspect in the said case.

10. In view of the aforesaid facts and law, we find that the trial Court has committed an error while rejecting the application for release of the passport without assigning any cogent reason and therefore, the order dated 24.4.2019 passed by the trial Court is set aside and the application for release of the passport of the a