Telangana High Court
Shalibasha Shaik Mohammad vs Union Of India on 8 November, 2024
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA
WRIT PETITION No.29207 OF 2024
Mr. Bala Krishna Mandapati, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Ms. N.V.R.Rajya Lakshmi, learned counsel representing Mr. Gadi Praveen Kumar,
learned Deputy Solicitor General of India for the respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for the
respondent No.3.
ORDER:
The writ petition has been filed for issuance of writ of mandamus declaring that the action of the respondent No.2/Regional Passport Officer in rejecting the Police Clearance Certificate Application of the petitioner as illegal and arbitrary and for issuance of Police Clearance Certificate to the petitioner.
2. The petitioner is the first accused in Crime No.577 of 2019 pending before the Principal Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy. The petitioner and one other person were granted bail by the said Court on 28.11.2019.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner places a job offer by an entity based in Maputo, Mozambique which reflects the joining date to 16.11.2024 or on receipt of Visa, whichever is earlier. Counsel submits that the fundamental rights of the petitioner cannot be curtailed by the adverse police report and the consequent refusal on the part of the respondent-passport 2 authorities to issue Police Clearance Certificate by reason of the pendency of the criminal proceedings before the Sangareddy Court. Counsel submits that the petitioner is ready to give an undertaking that the petitioner would continue to cooperate with the investigation and will appear virtually before the Court for that purpose.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the passport authorities submits that the petitioner failed to state the fact of the pendency of the criminal proceedings in the concerned declaration/form by reason of which the petitioner's passport was extended till 17.10.2033. Counsel submits that the Regional Passport Authority has no power to issue a Police Clearance Certificate in the face of an adverse police report issued by the police authorities.
5. Upon hearing learned counsel appearing for the parties, this Court is of the view that the petitioner should first approach the jurisdictional Court for appropriate relief where the criminal proceedings are pending. This is particularly important since the Court granted bail to the petitioner subject to certain conditions including that the petitioner would not leave the jurisdiction of the concerned police station without prior permission of the Court. The worth of the undertaking 3 which the petitioner offers to give has to be seen against the practicality of the situation. The petitioner seeks to leave the country for an employment opportunity in Mozambique. The practicality of virtual appearances is a factor which the jurisdictional Court must take into consideration and decide.
6. The reliance placed on the judgment of a Single Bench of the Delhi High Court in Amardeep Singh Bedi v. Union of India1 does not assist the case of the petitioner since the offence in that case was under The Employees' Provident Fund Act, 1952 and particularly since the petitioner had fulfilled his liability under the said Act by making the required Provident Fund deposits. The decision further records that the petitioner had been granted Anticipatory Bail with the sole condition that the petitioner must join the investigation whenever directed by the investigating officer and that no restriction has been imposed by the Trial Court on the petitioner's travel. These are vital factual differences between the present case and Amardeep Singh Bedi's case (supra). Moreover, the petitioner in that case had also approached the Trial Court for relief before filing the proceedings before the Trial Court.
1 2024 SCC Online Del 7039 4
7. This Court is not inclined to go into the merits of the rival contentions or the legality of the prayers in the writ petition since that may prejudice the Trial Court if and when the petitioner approaches the Court for appropriate directions.
8. W.P.No.29207 of 2024 is disposed of in terms of the above. Needless to say, the Court at Sangareddy shall not be influenced by this order and shall decide the application, if filed by the petitioner, on a clean slate.
9. Interim orders, if any, shall stand vacated and all connected applications are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
____________________________________ MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, J Date: 08.11.2024 SSP/VSU