Disposed

Pran Chhada v. Sindhu Ghosh

Chhattisgarh HC16 Dec 2022CRR/180/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh disposed of a criminal revision regarding an accused seeking passport return and permission to leave the country. The Court directed the trial court to re-examine the application afresh as the earlier period had lapsed and case developments occurred.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to respondent to file fresh application for passport return and permission to leave; prior orders declared infructuous.

Pran Chhada Vs Sindhu Ghosh — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Chhattisgarh HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Criminal Revision No.180 of 2021

¶4

Pran Chhada, S/o Late Chamman Lal Chhada, aged 73 years, R/o Chhadabadi, Infront of Sanjay Taran Pushkar, Bilaspur, Tahsil and DistrictBilaspur (CG)

¶5

---- Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

1. Sindhu Ghosh, S/o Late Salil Ghosh, aged 44 years, R/o B-1/7, Lake View Apartment, Diamond Park, Next to Thakurpur, Kolkata-700120, presently residing at Alreef, Downtown, Flat No.400, Abu Dhabi (U.A.E.) P.O. Box No.35566

¶8

2. State of Chhattisgarh, through Station House Officer, Police – Civil Line, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (CG)

¶9

---- Respondents

¶10

For Applicant : Mr.Rajeev Shrivastava, Senior Advocate with Mr. Malay Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr.R.S.Marhas, Advocate For Respondent No. 2 : Ms Pushplata Khalkho, Panel Lawyer

¶11

Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order on Board

¶12

16.12.2022

¶13

The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 4.3.2021 passed by the Sixth Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in Criminal Revision No.7/2021, whereby the order dated 16.12.2020 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur in Misc.Criminal Case No.556/2020 rejecting the prayer for using passport and also not permitting to leave the country has been allowed after ascertaining the necessity of respondent No.1 for limited period, who is an accused in Crime No.423/2019 registered at Police Station-Civil Lines, Bilaspur for offence under Section 304-B of the IPC and granted bail by this Court in M.Cr.C.No.741 of 2020 vide order dated 10.2.2020 with certain conditions.

¶14

In M.Cr.C.No.741 of 2020 vide order dated 10.2.2020 bail was granted to respondent No.1 with certain conditions and one of the condition reads

¶15

¶16

thus:-

¶17

“The passport, which was deposited by the applicant before the prosecution agency shall remain in the custody of the prosecution agency and the applicant shall not leave the country without specific orders to be passed by the learned Remand Magistrate/learned Trial Judge.”

¶18

During the pendency of investigation, respondent No.1 moved an application for returning of his passport under Section 457 of the CrPC, which has been dismissed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur in MJC No.556/2020 vide order dated 16.12.2020 taking into consideration that investigation is not completed. So returning of passport is not justified and accordingly, also not allowed to visit foreign country. Against such order, respondent No.1 has preferred Criminal Revision No.7/2021 before the Sixth Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur. By the impugned order, the revision has been allowed and the concerned Court is directed that after ascertaining the necessity of respondent No.1 passport may be given for limited period. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order, the applicant / father of the deceased has filed this criminal revision.

¶19

Mr.Rajeev Shrivastava, learned Senior Counsel with Mr.Malay Shrivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, would submit that as the application was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur mentioning the necessity to visit Abu Dhabi for the period December, 2020 to June 2021 and such period has already been lapsed, so the order loses its efficacy and respondent No.1 ought to have required to move separate application mentioning the ground and as per condition of bail order, the trial Court is required to relook on such ground and pass appropriate orders. He would further submit that earlier order was passed at the pre-investigation stage and now the charge-sheet has been filed and the case is at committal stage. He contended that the applicant has moved an application for cancellation

¶20

¶21

of bail, which is pending consideration before this Court vide Cr.M.P.No.602/2020. So, the applicant may also been given sufficient liberty to oppose the application before the trial Court. So, the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur may be affirmed and set aside the order of the revisional Court.

¶22

Mr.R.S.Marhas, learned counsel for respondent No.1, at this juncture accepted the submissions put forth by learned Senior Counsel for the applicant that earlier application was moved at the pre-investigation stage and mentioning the requirement for the period December, 2020 to June 2021 and such period has already been lapsed. So, this Court may give liberty to respondent No.1 to file separate application for returning of passport and also for permission to leave country as mentioned in the bail order dated 10.2.2020 to decide the issue afresh on its own merit.

¶23

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with criminal revision.

¶24

7. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and also considering that earlier order was passed at the pre-investigation stage, now the charge-sheet has been filed and the period has already been over and in spite of order of the revisional Court and stay granted by this Court, respondent No.1 is unable to visit foreign country and also not obtain passport in supurdginama and considering the development of the case, this Court find it appropriate that respondent No.1 is at liberty to move separate application before the concerned Court for fresh consideration and the applicant is also having an opportunity to oppose such application. If such an application is filed by respondent No.1, the concerned Court shall decide the same strictly in accordance with law on its own merit in terms of bail order dated 10.2.2020 passed in M.Cr.C.No.741 of 2020. The order dated

¶25

¶26

16.12.2020 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur as well as the order dated 4.3.2021 passed by the Sixth Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in Criminal Revision No.7/2021 shall render infructuous as period has already been over. The concerned trial Court is directed to decide the matter afresh if any application is filed after providing sufficient opportunity to the applicant to oppose such application. If any such an application is filed by respondent No.1, the applicant shall be made as a party. However, it is made clear that observation made hereinabove shall not affect the merit of the issue and the trial Court shall decide the issue on its own merit.

¶27

With the aforesaid observation / direction, the criminal revision stands disposed of.

¶28

Sd/-

¶29

( Deepak Kumar Tiwari )

¶30

Judge

¶31

B/-

Pran Chhada v. Sindhu Ghosh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pran Chhada v. Sindhu Ghosh

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

Lalit Chandrakar Vs Neelu Chandrakar

Tula Ram Vs Smt. Tulsibai

Sagar Shrivastava Vs Smt. Sanjukta Dutta

Bhagwati Devi Vs Anil Kumar Agrawal

D. Prabhakar Rao Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Imran Khan Vs Farhan Khan