Allowed

Union of India v. Beghani Talab Suleman @ Bashir @ T Kara and Anr.

Bombay HC18 Sept 2014APPA/923/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allowed cancellation of bail granted to an accused who committed fraud by suppressing the fact that he already possessed an Indian passport, facilitating potential international flight.

What did the court decide?

Cancelling bail granted to the applicant/appellant and directing FRRO and Passport Office to take appropriate steps.

Union of India Vs Beghani Talab Suleman @ Bashir @ T Kara and… — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

Sherla V.

¶2

appa.923.2014+.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.923 OF 2014 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.448 OF 2007 A/W CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1029 OF 2014 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.448 OF 2007

Union of India

... Applicant

Vs.

Beghani Talab Suleman @ Bashir @ T Kara & anr. ... Respondents

¶9

Ms.Rebecca Gonsalez for the Applicant – Union of India Mr.Ayaz Khan for Respondent No.1

¶10

CORAM: MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.

¶11

DATE: SEPTEMBER 18, 2014

¶12

P.C.:

¶13

Received the explanation of Registrar (Original Side) / Prothonotary and Senior Master, who was the then In-Charge Regisrar (Judicial) from 2.6.2010 to 15.6.2010. As per his explanation, he had directed Mrs.Barve, In-Charge of Criminal Appeal Department, to attend and do the needful and Mrs.Barve had prepared an office notice with the concerned Section Officer and Assistant on Farad Sheet about the receipt of such letter from the British High Commission, Mumbai. Accordingly,the matter was placed before the Court on 14.6.2010 and the office note was also shown on the

¶14

1 / 4

¶15

appa.923.2014+.doc

¶16

causelist of the Court. The office note was placed before the Court from time to time as per the assignment of the judicial work. He has submitted that all the matters are routed through the concerned Department through the criminal Appeal cell. He has requested that his explanation be accepted as he has taken the necessary steps.

¶17

From the explanation given by the Prothonotary and Senior Master, the then In-Charge Registrar (Judicial), it is found that the said letter was treated by the Registry in routine course, though the procedure was followed in taking the office note and putting it on the causelist. It is to be noted that if at all such specific letter is received by any Department of Government or any individual specifying some uncommon circumstance or a particular fact situation, it is not a routine matter and it is necessary for the concerned person in charge to understand the importance of such communication to the Court and that fact should be specifically pointed out to the concerned Judge. It is true that there is always a voluminous record and many papers which the Registry and the concerned Judge has to deal with everyday. Therefore, it is expected of the concerned person in charge to be more alert and diligent in taking mental note of such communication and point it out to the concerned Judge personally or through the Court Sheristedar. Be that as it may, this explanation, as the endorsement was made by the Registrar (Judicial) In-Charge and further steps taken by the Department, is accepted.

¶18

2 / 4

¶19

appa.923.2014+.doc

¶20

It is mentioned that the British Deputy High Commission wanted to issue new passport to this applicant/accused. In such an event, it was the duty of either the FRRO and also the Registry of this Court, though they were not negligent, to communicate to the British Deputy High Commission with regard to the issuance of new passport by being more diligent and taking necessary steps, as they are dealing with criminals.

¶21

After taking stock of all the correspondence and he communication between various departments and various individuals including the daughter of the applicant/accused and so also the hotel where the ceremony was scheduled to take place and the e-mails which are produced by the learned Counsel for the applicant/accused, it is evident that the applicant/accused has played fraud on the Court by suppressing a fact that he was already having a passport in his hands and that his expired passport was with the High Court. The documents produced by the FRRO disclose that the applicant/accused has already obtained Indian passport on 8.1.2014 from Surat passport office bearing No.L4449558 by hiding a fact that he is a British national and also in a different name. Therefore, that passport needs to be cancelled by the passport authority.

¶22

Under such circumstances, the application moved by the NCB for cancellation of the bail granted to the applicant/accused vide order dated 30.7.2007 is hereby granted and the bail is hereby cancelled.

¶23

3 / 4

¶24

appa.923.2014+.doc

¶25

Both the applications are disposed of accordingly.

¶26

A copy of this order and the earlier order dated 14.8.2014 passed by this Court be sent to the FRRO, Mumbai and the Passport Office, Surat, to take appropriate steps as per law and the British Deputy High Commissioner for their information and record.

¶27

(MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)

¶28

4 / 4

Union of India v. Beghani Talab Suleman @ Bashir @ T Kara and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India v. Beghani Talab Suleman @ Bashir @ T Kara and Anr.

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

Dilip Sitaram Kale and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Suryakant Dinkar Nalawade Vs the State of Maharashtra

Suraj Anil Bhosale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Hannursidha Kellappa Shejale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Yogesh Sadashiv Chavan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Pramod Shantilal Sancheti Vs the State of Maharashtrac