P.C :

1 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2 By this petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the impugned letters dated 20^th March 2020 and 20^th October 2020 issued by the respondent No. 2 i.e. the Regional Passport Office, Mumbai. There is also a prayer seeking direction to the respondent No. 2 to consider petitioner’s application seeking issuance of passport, afresh.

3 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had applied for issuance of passport, however, her application was rejected by the respondent No. 2 i.e. the Regional Passport Office vide letters dated 20^th March 2020 and 20^th October 2020. He submits that the reason spelt out in the letter dated 20^th March 2020 is, that the CBI informed them that “the case matter is still pending in the CBI and hence, her (petitioner’s ) file should not be cleared till the matter ends”.

4 Mr. Kocharekar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was no proceeding pending before the CBI Court nor before the High Court, for the CBI to send such a remark to the respondent No. 2. He submits that the petitioner having been acquitted on merits by the trial Court, which Judgment and Order was confirmed by the High Court, there was no proceeding pending before any Court and as such, the respondent No. 2 could not have refused to issue passport to the petitioner. He submits that even the CBI’s stand that the case was pending before the CBI, is contrary to the record, inasmuch as, there is no proceeding pending against the petitioner.

5 Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 i.e. the Passport Authority submits that on receipt of a report from the CBI stating therein, that the matter is pending before the CBI and that the file should not be cleared, the petitioner’s file seeking issuance of passport, came to be closed. He submits that it is open for the petitioner to re-apply for fresh passport, since her earlier application has been closed, in view of the CBI Report. 6 Mr. Gharat, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No. 3-CBI, submits that the petitioner’s application seeking issuance of passport, could not have been entertained by the respondent No. 2, as the petitioner had failed to furnished surety within six months from the date of the Judgment and Order of acquittal under Section 437A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (`Cr.P.C’). He submits that as the petitioner failed to furnish surety, the petitioner has now made herself liable for an offence under Section 176 of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC’).

7 Perused the papers. The petitioner was arrayed as accused No.11 in an MCOC case, being Special Case No. 7/2012. The sections for which the petitioner was prosecuted alongwith other co-accused were offences punishable under Section 302 and other Sections of the IPC as well as Section 3(25) of the Arms Act; under Sections 3(1)(1), 3(2) and 3(4) of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act; and under Sections 37(1)(a) and 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act.

8 After a full-fledged trial, the petitioner came to be acquitted of all the offences by the learned Special Judge, Mumbai, vide Judgment and Order dated 2^nd May 2018. In para 13 of the said Judgment and Order dated 2^nd May 2018, the petitioner was inter alia directed to execute the PR bond of Rs.50,000/- with one surety in the like amount under Section 437A of the Cr.P.C, for a period of six months, in order to enable her to appear before the High Court, in the event, an appeal or a petition is filed against the Judgment and Order of acquittal. The bail bond was to be in force for six months. It is not in dispute that the petitioner executed a PR Bond for Rs.50,000/- on 2^nd May 2018, however, sought time to furnish surety bond, as directed by the learned Special Judge. The learned Special Judge was pleased to extend the time to furnish the surety bond. Admittedly, the surety bond was not furnished, although, PR bond was furnished by the petitioner.

9 It is not in dispu