AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Doubting the correctness of the order dated on 11.04.2017 passed by
the learned A.C.J.M. Bolpur, in connection with G.R. Case 108 of 2010, the
present petitioner has filed this revisional application under Section 401,
read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
According to the petitioner he wanted to perform the ''Haj
Pilgrimage'' at Mecca and for which he intended to go to Mecca for the same
and for which he has applied before the passport authority. But the said
authority most arbitrarily and capriciously withheld his such application
only on the ground that a criminal case is pending against him.
Initially, he has filed an application before the learned A.C.J.M.
Bolpur, on 3rd January, 2017 and the learned Court below has passed an
order on that day recording "it is a matter on record that the
petitioner/accused has been enlarged on bail by the order of the Hon''ble
High Court, Calcutta, with some stipulations that he shall attend the police
station as and when required for the purpose of investigation, he shall not
commit any further offence while on bail. In this position this Court has no
scope to pass any further order in this regard. Let the petition regarding
information be kept with the record." Thereafter, the present petitioner has
filed another application on 11.04.2017 and prayed for disposal of his earlier
application filed by him on 01.03.2017.
At the time of hearing, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of
the petitioner contended that he belongs to Muslim Community and as a
part of a religious duty he intends to avail ''Haj Pilgrimage'' of this year.
On perusal of the impugned order, I find quite rightly learned trial
court has rejected the said petition that in view of the High Court''s direction
i.e. he shall attend the police station as and when required for the purpose
of investigation and that he shall not tamper with the prosecution case and
he shall not commit any further offence, while on bail.
Learned Public Prosecutor-in-charge has submitted that
investigation is still going on and that the charge-sheet or report in final
form has not yet been submitted. He, however, submitted that there is no
instance of tampering and during this period he had not committed any
further offence. However, specific direction of the High Court is such that he shall attend the police station as and when required for the purpose of
investigation.
However, in any event, there is no absolute right to demand a
passport because that is not a right to a personal liberty even in the
blackstonian sense. The passport is obviously a political document and the
state may chose to give or to withhold. The State can very well withhold a
person''s journey to abroad, if it considers that the same would be harmful to
the larger interests of our country and who themselves are in any event
undesirable emissaries of our nation and who might, if allowed to go abroad,
cause many complexions. A system of passport is thus essential and
requires a wide discretion.
But in this case it is alleged that the passport authority mainly
raised objection since a criminal case is pending against him.
The learned trial court was mainly concerned, quite rightly, that
since the stipulation has been given by the higher court, the petitioner is
supposed to attend the police station as and when required for the purpose
of investigation, so he has refused to entertain the application.
Admittedly, the investigation has not yet ended in charge-sheet or
in final form. We are not in the know of it whether the presence of the
accused is still required before the police station for the purpose of
investigation or not at this stage. Therefore, I think that it would be
appropriate to direct the learned A.C.J.M., Bolpur, to obtain a status report
of this accused petitioner so far as the investigation is concerned and also to
ascertain from the Investigating Officer whether the presence of the present
accused petitioner is required for next three months or not. If the Investigating Officer''s report speaks that presence of the accused petitioner
before the local police station is no longer required for next three months in
that case the accused petitioner''s prayer can be considered in the light of
the report to be submitted by the Investigating Officer, provided the accused
petitioner files such application before the leaned A.C.J.M. again.
With this directions and observations as made above, this C.R.R.
No. 1484 of 2017 stands disposed of.
Let a copy of this judgment and the L.C.R. be sent to the learned
Court below for information and taking necessary action in accordance with
law.
Urgent certified photocopy of this Judgment and order, if applied
for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.