Dismissed

Saleem Shansher Patel v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC4 Oct 2013APPLN/2191/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an interim stay of trial over an accused person, the High Court directed the applicant to seek no-objection from the presiding Magistrate for passport renewal; the authority to issue a new passport lies with the Passport Authority upon production of the Magistrate 's order.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed; applicant directed to seek no-objection from the Judicial Magistrate before applying for passport renewal.

Saleem Shansher Patel Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2191 OF 2012 IN WP/657/2011

¶3

SALEEM SHANSHER PATEL

¶4

VERSUS

¶5

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS

¶6

Advocate for Applicant : Mr. C.V. Thombre APP for Respondents: Mr.K.S.Patil

¶7

CORAM : ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J. Dated: October 04, 2013

¶8

P.C. :-

¶9

Heard the learned counsel for the applicant. Heard the learned

¶10

APP.

¶11

By consent, decided finally.

¶12

The applicant is one of the accused in SCC No.7974/2004 pending

¶13

before Judicial Magistrate First Class, at Aurangabad. One of the accused in the said case has challenged the prosecution vide the said case, by filing a Writ Petition being No.657/2011, which is pending before this Court. By an interim order passed in the said petition, further proceedings of the said case have been stayed. The applicant, who is the other accused in the said case applied for renewal of his passport but, the Passport Authority, by its letter dated 14.3.2012 informed the applicant that he may apply for a fresh passport, with correct particulars and copy of the acquittal order. It is under these circumstances, that, the applicant has, by making this application, approached this Court praying that the communication dated 14.3.2012 made by the Passport Authority be set aside and that, the Passport Authority be directed to accept the application for grant of

¶14

aaa/-

¶15

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶16

passport without copy of the acquittal order.

¶17

aaa/-

¶18

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶19

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2191 OF 2012 IN WP/657/2011

¶20

The criminal proceeding against the applicant is pending in the

¶21

Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, at Aurangabad. Since the Criminal Case is still pending, there is no question of producing a copy of ‘acquittal order’, and this could have been explained by the applicant to the Passport Authority.

¶22

Anyway, under the provisions of the Passport Act, and the rules framed thereunder, the Passport of the applicant can be renewed, or a new Passport can be issued to him, in case, he produces an appropriate order from the Court where the case against him is pending. It would be therefore proper that the applicant makes an application before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Aurangabad seeking his no objection for permitting the applicant to depart from India and a consequent ‘no objection’ for grant of passport.

¶23

In the event of such an application being made by the applicant before the learned Magistrate, the learned Magistrate shall consider the same on merits and in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders thereon. In case, permission to depart from India and a consequent ‘no objection’ for issue of passport is granted by the learned Magistrate, the applicant shall produce the same before the passport authority and the Passport Authority shall proceed to determine the question of issuance of a fresh passport to the applicant.

¶24

It appears that the application has been made before this Court only because the writ petition filed by the co-accused is pending before this Court

¶25

aaa/-

¶26

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶27

and

¶28

-3-

¶29

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2191 OF 2012 IN WP/657/2011

¶30

order staying the trial has been passed. However, it is made clear that the said order staying the trial shall not be a bar for the learned Magistrate to consider the application, as is intended to be made before him by the applicant ; and as a matter of fact, the learned Magistrate shall decide the same expeditiously in view of the directions given above.

¶31

The application is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶32

( ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J. )

¶33

aaa/-

Saleem Shansher Patel v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saleem Shansher Patel v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Satyabhamabai Laxman Dharme Vs Ramhari Sitaram Therbele and Anr.

Sayyed Fataulla Hashmi Ahmadulla Hashmi and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Maruti Jagannath Karad Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Baban @ Rohidas Tukaram Zambre and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Ramhari Balasaheb Ghadge and Anr. Vs Ravindra Tanaji Ghadge and Ors.

Munna Khan Rustum Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another