The High Court of Bombay at Goa dismissed a writ petition by an Italian national on bail in an N.D.P.S. case seeking permission to leave India to care for his ailing parents. The Court distinguished cited precedents involving Indian nationals, holding that the stay was justified to ensure the accused would face trial.
Rule discharged. No order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 75 OF 2009.
Mr. K. Paulikar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. W. Coutinho, Public Prosecutor for the respondent.
CORAM :- U. D. SALVI, J.
DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT : 19th November, 2009. DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT:- 21st November, 2009.
JUDGMENT :
2
therewith and the reply.
(i) The accused shall execute personal bond of Rs. 1 Lac with one surety in the like amount.
3
(ii) The accused shall funish his residential address to the Court as well as to Investigating Officer within a period of 3 days from the date of his release.
(iii) The accused shall attend Anjuna Police Station between 10.00 to 12.00 hours every alternate day from the date of his release till filing of the chargesheet.
(iv) The Investigating Officer shall verify the residential address submitted by the accused and report compliance.
4
family matters. The petitioner further submits that for the aforesaid reasons, he moved an application- Special Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.10/2009 under Section 457 of Cr.P.C. for release of his passport and seeking permission to leave India before the Special Court on 16.09.2009. After having failed to get the release as sought in the said application, the petitioner submits, he has preferred this writ petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.,1973.
5
Versus C.B.I. and further proceeded to cite unreported two more judgments delivered by the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Criminal Miscellaneous No. M-17094 of 2009 Subash Chander Versus State of Punjab and Criminal Miscellaneous No.M—25887 of 2009 Sadrick Sohan Lal Versus State of Punjab on 08/07/2009 and 25/09/2009 respectively in order to advance the argument that every person is considered innocent till proved guilty and as such there can be no unreasonable embargo on the right of such person to travel abroad.
6
as may be necessary either for giving effect to any order passed under the Code or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. In the instant case, therefore, one has to look for whether there has been any abuse of the process of the Court or exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code is necessary to secure the ends of justice.
7
8
costs.
U. D. SALVI, J.
SMA
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to grant permission to a foreign national on bail to leave India for family reasons despite pending N.D.P.S. trial.
Whether the refusal to release the passport of a foreign national to a foreign national to travel abroad.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Suresh Nanda Versus C.B.I.Distinguished¶26
2008 All M R (Cri) 1189 S.C. Suresh Nanda Versus C.B.I.
Subash Chander Versus State of PunjabDistinguished¶28
Criminal Miscellaneous No. M-17094 of 2009 Subash Chander Versus State of Punjab
Sadrick Sohan Lal Versus State of PunjabDistinguished¶28
Criminal Miscellaneous No.M-25887 of 2009 Sadrick Sohan Lal Versus State of Punjab
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Andrea Alfredo Tonali
State of Goa
U. D. SALVI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
