The Delhi High Court disposed of a petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the order dated 15.11.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge (NDPS) in a Custom Case, on an application filed by the petitioner requesting for the release of his passport.
The Court observed that the learned Special Judge seems to have simply accepted the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent; however, no material in this regard was placed before the learned Special Judge
Brief Facts:
The petitioner was granted bail by an order dated 04.06.2021 passed by the learned Special Judge. One of the conditions imposed for the grant of bail to the petitioner was that the petitioner shall surrender his passport before the Customs Department. The petitioner duly complied with the said condition and surrendered his passport. The petitioner was, thereafter, granted admission at Thompson Rivers University, Vancouver, Canada, for pursuing the course in Post Baccalaureate Diploma in Marketing.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that though the petitioner was arrested on 02.03.2021 in relation to the subject prosecution, the charge sheet has still not been filed. He argued that the charges, in any case, are directed mainly against his brother, namely Lakshay Jain. He contended that while the investigation is ongoing, the future of the petitioner cannot be jeopardized.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The Learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the present petition is not maintainable inasmuch as the Impugned Order is interlocutory in nature. He argued that the investigation is pending and the charge sheet could not be filed only because one of the co-accused is presently absconding and proceedings to declare him as a Proclaimed Offender are pending before the Court.
The Court noted that the right to travel abroad is a part of the personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It can be curtailed in accordance with a procedure established by law.
The Court observed that the learned Trial Court denied permission to the petitioner for the release of his passport. The Impugned Order cannot be said to be interlocutory in nature as it has trappings of finality and decides the vital and valuable rights of the petitioner. The Court said that the learned Special Judge seems to have simply accepted the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent that as the brother of the petitioner made various communications with drug traffickers located outside India, the petitioner may hamper the investigation; however, no material in this regard was placed before the learned Special Judge. Therefore, the Impugned Order cannot be sustained.
The Decision of the Court:
The Delhi High Court, disposing of the petition, held that the petitioner is granted liberty to file a fresh application before the learned Special Judge to seek release of his passport, which shall be decided by the learned Special Judge remaining uninfluenced by any observation made in the Impugned Order.
Case Title: Aman Jain v Customs
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Navin Chawla
Case No.: CRL.REV.P. 854/2022
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Rajiv Raheja
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. Pramod Bahuguna
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source : https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6b/Travel_icon.png
