Passport related judgement

firm

Dear all,

I came to know that recently Allahabad high court has given judgement that an accused in a criminal case can have passport and travel abroad without any bar.

if any member has access to this judgement, pls share, I need it urgently.

Best regards

Sandeep Aggarwal

 
Reply   
 

If high court is given judgement it may be appealed to supreme court .so don't be hurry.wait patiently
 
Reply   
 


..

High court judgement will based on facts and merit of that case, you need to check complete your case before quoting then same. As well that High court judgement can challenged in apex court.
 
Reply   
 

eLegalix - Allahabad High Court Judgment Information System (Judgment/Order in Text Format)

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Deputy Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

?Court No. - 29
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1954 of 2017

Petitioner :- Girish Kumar Goel
Respondent :- Union Of India And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sudhir Kumar Agarwal
Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,G.P.Singh

Hon'ble Tarun Agarwala,J.
Hon'ble Vivek Chaudhary,J.
We have heard Sri M. C. Gupta alongwith Sri Sudhir Kumar Agrawal, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Gyan Prakash Singh, the learned counsel appearing for the Passport Officer.
The Passport Officer, Ghaziabad is also present in person today, who has produced scan copy of the record. The explanation given for his non-appearance on the previous date is accepted by the Court.
The petitioner was issued a manual passport on 31st December, 1999, which was valid for a period of 20 years, i.e., upto 31st December, 2019. The petitioner applied for re-issuance of a computerized passport in the year 2010 and submitted an application alongwith his original passport. The said application was taken on record. The original passport was cancelled and the petitioner was intimated that the computerized passport would be re-issued after completion of formality and a report also indicated that the police verification would be waived as is clear from the document dated 11th November, 2010.
Subsequently, it transpires that the computerized passport was not re-issued as in the meanwhile, the passport office asked for a police verification report, which was given and the passport office was informed about the commission of an offence
(2)
by the petitioner and criminal case pertaining to which was pending in a court of law. Based on this police verification report, the passport office issued notice dated 11th of May, 2012 intimating the petitioner about the commission of offence, which is pending in a court of law. In response to the said notice, the petitioner submitted a reply on 22nd of June 2012 producing a copy of the order passed by the High Court in a proceeding under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, intimating that further proceedings in Case Crime No. 12 of 2005 arising out of Criminal Case No. 402/9 of 2012 has been stayed. Based on this information received by the respondents and apparently satisfied, a further notice was issued on 10th of July, 2012 directing the petitioner to furnish personal particular form. Since this information was not received by the respondents, a decision was taken on 22nd of October, 2012 closing the file and consigning it to the record.
The petitioner contends that neither the notice of 13th July, 2012 nor the intimation of closing of file on 22nd October 2012 was ever intimated or served to the petitioner and that the petitioner was kept in the dark. On the other hand, the petitioner alleges that he made several visit to the passport office and was verbally assured that his application is under process.
The aforesaid facts about the passport of the petitioner being valid till 30th December, 2019 is admitted by the respondents. It is also admitted that the petitioner had applied for re-issuance of a computerized passport, in which police verification was waived. The respondents, however, submitted that a police verification


(3)
report was made, in which it was found that there was an offence committed, based on which, a notice was issued. The respondents, however, denied the facts that the notice dated 13th July 2012 and the closer of the case by an order dated 22nd October, 2012 was intimated to the petitioner.
During the course of the arguments, it was intimated to the Court that in view of computerization of the passport office no further process on the petitioner's old application could be done and that the petitioner is required to apply online afresh. It was also stated at the bar that in the event, the petitioner applies for issuance of a fresh passport or for re-issuance of the earlier passport, the same would be processed at the earliest subject to the condition of compliance of GSR No. 570 (E) dated 25th August, 1993, which requires the petitioner to obtain an order from the Court.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on the basis of the contentions raised by the rival parties, we find that the procedure adopted by the respondents is not in accordance with the provision of Section 6 (2) of the Passport Act 1967 or Section 10 of the said Act.
In our view, it is doubtful whether the procedure provided under Section 6 (2) of the Act would be applicable as in the instant case, it was not a case of the issuance of a fresh passport but was a case for re-issuance of a valid passport from manual to computerize passport.
Without going into this legal aspect, considering the submission made at the bar that in the event, the petitioner applies for re-issuance of the


(4)
passport through online application, the same would be processed at the earliest, this court, without going into the veracity of the assertion made, dispose of the matter with the following directions:-
(1) The petitioner will apply for re-issuance of a passport through online procedure within two weeks from today.
(2) The petitioner will also file an application before the trial court where the Criminal case is pending and apply for permission for issuance of a passport in terms of GSR No. 570(E) dated 25th August, 1993. If such an application is filed, the trial court will pass appropriate orders on the petitioner's application after considering all aspects of the matter and after hearing all the parties in the case. Such order would be passed within four weeks from the date of production of such application. It is made clear that the trial court will pass order on the petitioner's application only without being influenced by the interim order passed in proceedings under Section 482 Cr. P. C.
(3) Upon such order being passed by the trial Court, such certified copy of the order would be produced by the petitioner before the Passport Officer. Upon receipt of such order of the trial court, the Passport Officer will process the application of the petitioner in accordance with law within two weeks thereafter.�
In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs.�
Order Date :- 22.3.2017
YK
(Vivek Chaudhary, J.) � (Tarun Agarwala, J.)


Visit http://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/StartWebSearch.do for more Judgments/Orders delivered at Allahabad High Court and Its Bench at Lucknow. Disclaimer
 
Reply   
 
FIN

Originally posted by : Sandeep
Dear all,

I came to know that recently Allahabad high court has given judgement that an accused in a criminal case can have passport and travel abroad without any bar.

if any member has access to this judgement, pls share, I need it urgently.

Best regards

Sandeep Aggarwal

Local counsels can help you, if there was indded such judgment.

The applicable rules/procedure/laws are to be complied with.

 
Reply   
 
FIN

You may in the meantime go thru;

Allahabad High Court

?AFR 
Court No. - 21 

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 59959 of 2016 

Petitioner :- Mohd. Farid 
Respondent :- Union Of India And Another 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rohan Gupta,Dharmendra Singh 
Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Pramod Kumar Pandey 

Hon'ble V.K. Shukla,J. 
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. 
(Oral : V.K. Shukla, J.) 

The criminal cases that are pending, in the present case, are alleged to have come forward are arising out of matrimonial discord and the details that have been pointed out by the petitioner reflects that an NCR No. 68 of 2013 under Section 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code registered by Usman Khan a relative of Mrs. Tasneem Khan against the petitioner alongwith 3 others and during the pendency of the said proceedings, an application dated 13.08.2013 under Section 155(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure came to be filed before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siddharth Nagar and the same came to be registered as Case No. 712/2013?Usman Khan -vs- Zamin and others and cognizance of the said case has been taken by the Petitioner only on 14.01.2015. In reference of another case lodged by wife of petitioner Mrs. Tasneem bearing Case Crime No. 1325/2013 under Section 323, 498A and 313 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section � of Dowry Prohibition Act wherein investigation has been carried out and final report has been submitted and petitioner has proceeded to mention that compromise has been entered therein. 
Once such is the nature of criminal cases, then merely because the criminal case is pending, can the Passport Authority only on the said ground that criminal case is pending proceed to impound the passport in question. 
As already discussed above, the Passport Authority will have to take objective consideration while proceeding to exercise his discretion whether pendency of such criminal case warrants impounding of passport or not keeping in view the conduct of the petitioner. Apart from this in the present case what we find that the Passport Officer has proceeded to pass the order only on the premise that criminal case is pending before this Court and at no point of time reply that has been submitted by the petitioner that he was having matrimonial discord and the said criminal case have direct nexus with the same and in view of this, in the facts of the case, statutory obligation to record reasons under sub-section 5 of Section 10 also remains un-complied with and as such, the order dated 26.10.2016 is hereby quashed and set aside. The Passport Officer is free to pass fresh order as already mentioned above. 
With these, Writ Petition is allowed. 
Order Date :- 20.12.2016 
A. Pandey 
 

 

 

Muneer Ahmad vs State Of U.P. And Another on 15 July, 2010

Court No. - 5

 

Case :- U/S 482/378/407 No. - 2874 of 2010

 

Petitioner :- Muneer Ahmad

Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another

Petitioner Counsel :- Mohd. Raza Khan

Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate

 

Hon'ble Vedpal,J.

 

 

AFR 

Reserved 

Criminal Misc. Application No. 4811 of 2004 
Jarrar Hussain and others Vs. State of U.P. and another 
Connected with 

Criminal Misc. Application No. 8479 of 2005 
Karrar Hussain Vs. State of U.P. and another 


Hon'ble R.K.Rastogi,J 

 

 

?Court No. - 8 

Case :- U/S 482/378/407 No. - 4549 of 2012 

Petitioner :- Mohd. Shariq (At: 02:00 P.M.) 
Respondent :- The State Of U.P And Anr. 
Petitioner Counsel :- Maneesh Singh,Adnan Taher Khan 
Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate,R P Mishra 

Hon'ble Vishnu Chandra Gupta,J.

 
Reply   
 
FIN

You may take help for any matter from, elders of your family, competent and experienced well wishers, seasoned PIP’s, helpgroups, community leaders, NGO’s, experienced colleagues, associations, religious scholars/leaders, influential persons, Employee’s/Trade union leaders, help groups for spouses (Husband/wife)  etc and  find a very able LOCAL counsel specializing in concerned filed of law e.g; Criminal  matters as in your case, and well versed with LOCAL applicable rules, precedence, latest judgments etc …. and worth his/her salt, can advise you after examining all case related docs, inputs,  evidences on record.

Obtain proper legal opinion in writing!

Avoid acting on your own on hearsay.

One should not fall for IT’s and entities loitering at online portals to allure unsuspecting querists. There are many threads on such instances at LCI also.

Online discussions are not substitute to in person discussions with a very able counsel of unshakable repute and integrity specializing in concerned field of law.

One should not fall for IT’s and entities loitering at online portals to allure unsuspecting querists……the personal details of unsuspecting querists/citizens get stored in databanks/compromised……hacked.

 Such IT’s and entities keep on poping up at online portals with fake and new ID’s after  their old ID’s are permanently blacklisted/shunted out and money fleeced from unsuspecting is finished.

There are such very able counsels at each location.

Check for such counsels at LOCAL; Civil Courts, HC, SC,..

You can also try for FREE legal Aid from Legal aid center (DLSA) that is usually within LOCAL courts complex..preferably from a very able counsel specializing in Criminal matters.

Your counsels  may opine that you can appear on 1st date, and obtain copies of petition etc to reply later ….and inform the court that you shall be engaging a counsel and appear thru your counsel….Or your counsel can appear and obtain copies of petition etc and reply later or your new counsel can appear for you.

Your counsels can advise after examining all docs/record/inputs pertaining to your matter and help you. You can also search threads on similar query in SEARCH option ON left Hand side of threads in Forum/Experts section. Having learnt a lesson, remember to consult beforehand for your matters or any matter about which you are not properly informed.

There have many instances of such entities operating with multiple fake Id’s at online portals.

 

 

The FEE of all LOCAL counsels at all LOCATIONS is not high/unreasonable as mis-believed by many.

Many counsels even at State Capital/Metro towns  do not demand unreasonable high FEE.

IT is rather at online portals that unsuspecting querists are mislead as per many publications, by IT’s and Entities that pose as some Lawyer (actually LIAR) and flaunt/advertise firms that are not Law Firms (Actually LIAR’s Firms) to believe that LOCAL counsels are not knowledgeable..are incompetent.

In Reality the LOCAL counsels win cases in LOCAL courts at all LOCATIONS.

You can go thru/search the cases contested by any Lawyer at court website.

 
Reply   
 
FIN

Originally posted by : Sandeep
Dear all,

I came to know that recently Allahabad high court has given judgement that an accused in a criminal case can have passport and travel abroad without any bar.

if any member has access to this judgement, pls share, I need it urgently.

Best regards

Sandeep Aggarwal

The posts of  Om Parkash are posted to hint that IT is posting by the id of IT's biological grandfather.

The judgment posted by It is not in sync with query.

 

Extarct;

"as in the instant case, it was not a case of the issuance of a fresh passport but was a case for re-issuance of a valid passport from manual to computerize passport. Without going into this legal aspect, considering the submission made at the bar that in the event, the petitioner applies for re-issuance of the (4) passport through online application, the same would be processed at the earliest

"

 
Reply   
 

Kumar Doab, please have mercy on me and kindly read the query of Sandeep Aggarwal. Regards.
 
Reply   
 

LEAVE A REPLY


    

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  



 

Search Forum:








×

  LAWyersclubindia Menu