Vishal Singh vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 5641 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Vishal Singh vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 3 March, 2025

Author: Ashwani Kumar Mishra

Bench: Ashwani Kumar Mishra

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:29517-DB
 
Court No. - 29
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 4352 of 2025
 

 
Petitioner :- Vishal Singh
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Hind Pratap Lal
 
Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Arvind Kumar Goswami,C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
 

Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh,J.

Heard Shri Hind Pratap Lal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Arvind Kumar Goswami, learned counsel for the respondent.

Petitioner is implicated in Case Crime No.402 of 2021, under Sections- 420, 386, 342, 452, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. Police Station- Kotwali Mau, District- Mau. According to the petitioner he has been falsely implicated in such case and has already been enlarged on bail by the competent court of sessions on 18.10.2021. The petitioner also submits that the trial is pending and petitioner is participating in such proceedings. It is at this stage that the passport authorities have impounded petitioner's passport vide order dated 17.12.2024. The only reason specified for impounding the passport is that a criminal case is pending before the Court. The reliance is placed upon Section 10(3)(e) of the Passport Act.

Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court passed in Writ-C No.20480 of 2024 (Mohammad Umar Vs. Union of India and 2 Others) wherein after noticing the statutory scheme the court has clearly observed that recording of reasons would be necessary and mere statement that criminal case is pending cannot be sufficient to impound the passport. In paragraph 14 the co-ordinate bench has observed as under:-

"14. The passport officer in the present matter has taken decision to impound petitioner's passport under Section 10(3)(e) of the Passports Act, 1967 only on the ground that proceedings related to an offence are pending against the petitioner before criminal court but he has not considered the facts of the criminal case and has also not recorded reasons to arrive at a conclusion that petitioner may misuse his passport for avoiding his presence before the criminal court and also for delaying the conclusion of the criminal proceedings and therefore it is necessary to impound his passport under Section 10(3)(e) of the Passports Act, 1967. More so we find that Section 10(5) of the Passports Act, 1967 mandates the passport authority to give brief reasons for passing the order for impounding of the passport but in the present case impugned communication dated 30.05.2023 does not disclose that the passport authority has made any consideration of the facts of the case and has recorded reasons. Ergo, the impugned decision for impounding petitioner's passport contained in the impugned order dated 30.05.2023 cannot be sustained in the eyes of law."

Since in the present case absolutely no reasons are recorded and there is an apparent disobedience of the provisions of Section 10(5) of the Passport Act, we are of the view that order impugned is sustained. Consequently the present writ petition is allowed. Order impugned is quahsed. Liberty stands reserved to the respondent to re-consider the matter in light of the facts noticed above and to pass a fresh order keeping in view the provisions of the Act and the guidelines issued.

Order Date :- 3.3.2025

A Gautam