Allowed

Rubina Siraj Sayyed v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC31 Oct 2018APPA/1228/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an application for the return of the applicant's expired passport and directed the Regional Passport Authority to renew it, noting the passport was seized during investigation despite no order for impounding and the applicant being on bail.

What did the court decide?

Passport returned for renewal; Respondent No. 2 directed to renew passport as per rules.

Rubina Siraj Sayyed Vs the State of Maharashtra — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

907.APPA.1228.18.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1228 OF 2018 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.603 OF 2007

Rubina Siraj Sayyed

… Applicant

V/s.

The State of Maharashtra & Anr.

¶9

... Respondents

¶10

Mr. Ayaz Khan, Advocate for the Applicant.

¶11

Mr. S.V. Gavand, APP for Respondent No.1/State.

¶12

Mr. D.P. Singh, Advocate for Respondent No.2 APL Mr. Shinde, DCB CID Unit-1.

¶13

CORAM : A.M.BADAR, J.

¶14

DATED : 31^st OCTOBER 2018.

¶15

P.C. :

¶16

This is an application for return of the expired passport to the Regional Passport Officer to issue fresh passport as per rules.

¶17

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicant/accused. He argued that the applicant/accused is already released on bail and the learned trial Court had not ordered for impounding her passport. The same is with the record

1/3

Aarti Palkar

907.APPA.1228.18.doc

of the case and the applicant/accused needs the same for the purpose of its renewal.

¶22

The learned APP is not disputing the fact that the passport was not impounded and that it has no relevance to the offence alleged to be proved against the applicant/accused. The learned counsel appearing for the Passport Authority submits that if order by this Court, the respondent No.2 will take necessary steps.

¶23

The applicant/accused is convicted of offence punishable under Section 120(B) read with Sections 3(1)(ii), 2(a) and 3(4) of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 and maximum punishment imposed on him is that of five years rigorous imprisonment. The applicant/accused is already released on bail. It is seen that as during the investigation, the passport was seized, it was filed with the charge-sheet and is the part of the record.

¶24

In this view of the matter, the following order;

¶25

- : ORDER : -

¶26

(i) The passport of the applicant/accused be returned to her

¶27

for the purpose of its renewal.

2/3

Aarti Palkar

907.APPA.1228.18.doc

(ii) Respondent No.2 Regional Passport Authority is directed

¶32

to renew the passport as per rules and procedure.

¶33

(iii) The application is disposed of accordingly.

¶34

(A.M.BADAR J.)

¶35

3/3

¶36

Aarti Palkar

Rubina Siraj Sayyed v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rubina Siraj Sayyed v. the State of Maharashtra

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

Dattatrya Shripati Atigare Vs Chairman, Chaitayan Earth Movers Pvt. Ltd. Avinash v. Patil and Anr.

Shrikant @ Rajendra Vilas Chaudhary and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ruturaj Arjunrao Kale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Malan Narayan Jadhav and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ramesh Rangrao Kamble Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vijaykumar Piraji Chinchalkar Vs the State of Maharashtra