Allowed

Sujata Rajan Nikalje v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC1 Apr 2013WP/417/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Single Bench allowed the Criminal Writ Petition seeking renewal of the petitioner's passport affected by a conviction. The Court permitted the petitioner to apply for renewal and direct that the renewed passport be retained in custody by the State for the duration of the criminal proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to apply for passport renewal; State retained in safe custody.

Sujata Rajan Nikalje Vs the State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2013)

cri-wp-417-13

pdp

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 417 OF 2013

Sujata Rajan Nikalje

.. Petitioner

Vs.

The State of Maharashtra and anr.

¶10

.. Respondents

¶11

Mr. A. A. Kumbhakoni a/w Mr. Vishal Kolekar for petitioner. Ms. P. H. Kantharia, APP for respondent no.1- State. Mr. S. R. Shinde for respondent no.2-UOI.

¶12

CORAM: P. V. HARDAS & A. R. JOSHI, JJ.

¶13

APRIL 01, 2013.

¶14

P.C.

¶15

Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission.

¶16

By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,

¶17

the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ directing the respondents to

¶18

¶19

cri-wp-417-13

¶20

renew the passport of the petitioner.

¶21

The facts in brief as are necessary for the decision of this petition may briefly be stated thus:-

¶22

The petitioner was arrested on 13/12/2005 in connection with Crime No. 150 of 2005 registered by the DCB CID, Mumbai for offences punishable under the provisions of Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999, under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code and under the Arms Act. Upon completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet against the present petitioner and other accused was filed and was registered as MCOC Special Case No. 8 of 2006 and is pending on the file of the Special Judge. Meanwhile, the petitioner had applied for her bail and accordingly was released on bail by the order of the Special Judge dated 12/9/2007. Bail was granted to the petitioner on certain conditions and according to the petitioner, the petitioner is strictly abiding by the conditions imposed by the Special Judge.

¶23

The petitioner further states that the petitioner holds a Indian Passport No. Z-1107342. Since the passport of the petitioner was to expire

¶24

¶25

cri-wp-417-13

¶26

on 27/1/2008, the petitioner had applied before the trial court for renewal of the passport by filing Misc. Application No. 65 of 2011. The aforesaid application was basically filed for issuance of a No Objection Certificate for renewal of the passport. The aforesaid application filed by the petitioner was rejected by the Special Judge. The petitioner being thus aggrieved by the order passed by the Special Judge, dated 21/4/2011, filed Criminal Writ Petition No. 2621 of 2011 in this court. The Division Bench of this Court by order dated 1/2/2012 allowed the said writ petition and directed the petitioner to hand over the passport to respondent no.1, after duly filling an application form for renewal / re-issuance and the application may be made by the respondent no.1 to the passport authorities. This court directed the passport authorities to consider the application and decide the renewal / re-issuance of the passport in accordance with law. This court further directed the passport authorities that in the event the passport was renewed/re-issued, the passport be handed over to respondent no.1 and not to the petitioner. This court also directed respondent no.1 to retain the passport in safe custody giving liberty to the petitioner to seek permission from the Special Judge, in the event the petitioner desires to travel abroad.

¶27

¶28

cri-wp-417-13

¶29

Pursuant thereto, the passport of the petitioner was renewed on

¶30

20/6/2012 for a period of one year i.e. from 20/6/2012 to 19/6/2013. Mr.Kumbhakoni, the learned counsel for the petitioner has stated before us that the procedure, which is now prescribed for renewal / re-issuance of the passport, is time consuming and the petitioner, therefore, may be permitted to apply for renewal / re-issuance of the passport well in advance. The learned counsel further stated that, in accordance with the earlier order passed by this court, the petitioner may be permitted to fill in the application form and to hand it over to respondent no.1 and the respondent no.1 be directed to forward the same to the passport authorities and after renewal of the passport, passport be handed over to respondent no.1.

¶31

We have perused the order passed by the Division Bench of this court dated 1/2/2012 and, therefore, we see no impediment in acceding to the request of the petitioner. According to us, therefore, the petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be allowed.

¶32

We direct the petitioner to hand over the passport to respondent no.1, if the same is not handed over to respondent no.1. We

¶33

¶34

cri-wp-417-13

¶35

further permit the petitioner to fill an application form seeking renewal / re-issuance of the passport and to submit the same to respondent no.1 and

¶36

further directed respondent no.1 to forward the same to the passport authorities. We direct the passport authorities to consider the application and decide the renewal / re-issuance of the passport in accordance with law and in the event of the passport being renewed / re-issued, the passport authorities to hand over the passport to the respondent no.1 and not to the petitioner. The respondent no.1 shall retain the passport in its custody. The petitioner may apply to the Special Judge, seeking permission in the event the petitioner desires to travel abroad.

¶37

This petition is accordingly allowed and Rule is made absolute on the terms indicated above, with no order as to costs.

¶38

(A. R. JOSHI,J.) (P. V. HARDAS,J.)

Sujata Rajan Nikalje v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sujata Rajan Nikalje v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chandrakat Bhikaji Chipkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Anil Ramchandra Parab Vs the State of Maharashtra

Hari Bhaktabahadur Thapa Vs the State of Maharashtra

Krishna S. Singh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rahul Dadaso Sargar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rohit Krishnamurti Chidambaram and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra