Mr.Shaik.Rijwan vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 1109 AP

                                    1
                                                                       CMR, J.
                                                        Crl. P. No.6279 of 2020




THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

                    Criminal Petition No.6279 of 2020

ORDER:

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

Additional Public Prosecutor for the 1st respondent-State and

learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-de facto complainant.

2). Aggrieved by the condition imposed by the trial Court to

deposit the original passport of the petitioner with the Court

during pendency of the trial while recalling NBW issued against

the petitioner, the present Criminal Petition under Section 482

Cr.P.C. is filed.

3). The petitioner is accused No.1 in C.C.No.313 of 2019 on

the file of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Madanapalle. He has been facing prosecution for the offences

punishable under Sections 498-A, 497, 323, 506 r/w. Sec.34 of

IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act in the

said case. Owing to his absence in the said case, earlier NBW

was issued against the petitioner by the trial Court to secure

his presence for trial. The petitioner approached this Court by

way of filing a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking recall

of NBW issued against him. This Court while disposing of the

said petition directed the petitioner to surrender before the trial

Court and seek recall of NBW issued against him and the trial

Court is directed to make an endeavour to dispose of the

criminal case expeditiously within two months from the date of

surrender of the petitioner before it. Pursuant to the said

CMR, J.

Crl. P. No.6279 of 2020

direction, the petitioner approached the trial Court and filed a

petition in Crl.M.P.No.2834 of 2020 under Section 70(2) Cr.P.C.

to recall the NBW. The trial Court allowed the said petition by

the impugned order and recalled the NBW issued against him

on condition of furnishing personal bond for Rs.10,000/- with

two sureties for the like sum each and on further condition that

he shall give an undertaking that he will not leave India till the

disposal of the case and he shall deposit his original passport

in the Court during pendency of the trial.

4). Therefore, being aggrieved by the said condition, not to

leave India and deposit the original passport, the petitioner is

before this Court by way of filing the present Criminal Petition

under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

5). Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly relied on the

judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Suresh Nanda v.

CBI1, wherein the Supreme Court held that the passport can be

impounded only by the Passport Authority under Section 10(3)

of the Passport Act and the same cannot be impounded by any

other authority. In a way, the Supreme Court also held in the

said judgment that seizing the passport or retaining the

passport also amounts to impounding the passport. Therefore,

placing strong reliance on the said judgment of the Apex Court,

learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the

aforesaid condition of deposit of the original passport in the

trial Court which in effect amounts to impounding the passport

is ex facie illegal in view of the ratio laid down in the aforesaid

(2008) 3 SCC 674

CMR, J.

Crl. P. No.6279 of 2020

judgment of the Apex Court and sought for quashing the said

condition.

6). Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-de facto

complainant opposed the petition contending that as per the

judgments earlier rendered by the Apex Court, a condition to

deposit passport can be imposed at the time of grant of bail. He

would further submit that there is no illegality in imposing

such a condition. He would further submit that as the

petitioner is now working in the United Kingdom that if he is

allowed to leave India by releasing the passport that it would be

difficult for the trial Court to secure his presence for the trial.

7). Thus, both the learned counsel have strenuously argued

in support of their respective contentions. Irrespective of the

fact that whether imposition of any such condition to deposit

the passport is legally sustainable or not, this Court is of the

considered view that the said condition can be relaxed, taking

into consideration the fact that the petitioner is admittedly an

employee working as Software Engineer in United Kingdom and

if he is not allowed to go to United Kingdom to attend his duties

as Software Engineer in the Company in which he is working by

retaining passport till the trial of the case is concluded that it

may certainly result into his termination from the service on

account of his continuance absence from duty. More

particularly, as it is not disputed before this Court by both the

learned counsel that in view of the present pandemic situation

that there is ban to travel from United Kingdom to India that

CMR, J.

Crl. P. No.6279 of 2020

the de facto complainant who is a material witness in the said

case could not come down to India from London to give

evidence in this case that the trial in the said criminal case is at

present stalled. Despite the direction given by this Court in the

earlier petition filed by the petitioner to expedite and conclude

the trial, this Court is of the considered view that as there is no

possibility of immediate conclusion of the trial in the said case.

Therefore, if the petitioner is not allowed to leave India for such

long time, certainly it would result into termination of his

employment. So, in the said facts and circumstances of the

case, this Court is of the considered view that the aforesaid

conditions imposed by the trial Court directing the petitioner to

give an undertaking that he would not leave India till disposal

of the case and also to deposit the original passport in the

Court during pendency of the trial are to be relaxed to enable

the petitioner to go to United Kingdom as and when the

Government permits to leave for United Kingdom and report for

duty by imposing certain conditions to ensure his presence

during the course of trial.

8). Therefore, in the said facts and circumstances of the

case, the Criminal Petition is allowed setting aside the condition

Nos.2 and 3 in the impugned order directing the petitioner not

to leave India till disposal of the case and to deposit his original

passport during pendency of the trial. The learned Magistrate

is directed to return the original passport that was deposited by

the petitioner, to him on proper acknowledgement. However,

CMR, J.

Crl. P. No.6279 of 2020

the petitioner shall execute a personal bond for Rs.2.00 Lakhs

with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the

trial Court. The petitioner is at present permitted to leave India

to go to United Kingdom to attend his duty. However, as and

when the trial in the case commences after the de facto

complainant comes down to India to give evidence, the

petitioner also shall immediately attend the trial Court to face

the prosecution and cooperate with the trial Court to conclude

the trial.

Consequently, miscellaneous applications, pending if any,

shall also stand closed.

________________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY Date:24.02.2021.

cs