Bombay High Court
Smt. Kamini Rahul Shewale vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 22 November, 2022
Bench: S. V. Kotwal
1 of 3 24-ia-3805-22
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3805 OF 2022
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 932 OF 2019
Smt. Kamini Rahul Shewale ..Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..Respondents
__________
Mr. Rajiv Chavan, Sr. Advocate i/b. Priyanka B. Chavan for
Applicant.
Mr. S. R. Agarkar, APP for State/Respondent No.1.
Mr. D. P. Singh, for Respondent No.2.
__________
CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE : 22nd NOVEMBER 2022
PC :
1. This is an application for directions to the Respondent
No.2 - Regional Passport Office to consider the application of the
applicant for renewal/ re-issuance of the applicant's Passport for a
period of 5 years. The application mentions that the applicant was
convicted for commission of offences punishable under sections
147, 149, 427, 153 and 353 of I.P.C. The maximum sentence
imposed on her was one year R.I., besides imposition of fine. The
Appeal against the Judgment and order of conviction recorded in
Digitally
VINOD
signed by
VINOD
BHASKAR
Sessions Case No.814 of 2014 passed by learned Additional
BHASKAR GOKHALE
GOKHALE Date:
2022.11.23
15:33:15
+0530 Gokhale
2 of 3 24-ia-3805-22
Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai was admitted. It was Criminal
Appeal No.932 of 2019. The applicant was also granted bail
pending her Appeal. The Appeal is not likely to reach in near
future. The application memo mentions that the applicant wants to
travel to Dubai for attending a meeting for the purpose of
investments in Maharashtra.
2. Heard Shri. Rajiv Chavan, learned Senior Advocate for
the Applicant, Shri. Agarkar, learned APP for the State/Respondent
No.1 and Shri. Singh, learned counsel for the Respondent No.2.
3. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant submitted that
Annexure 'G' i.e. Notification and Annexure 'H' i.e. office
memorandum indicate that permission of the Court where the
matter is pending is necessary for such renewal. He submitted that,
there is no reason as to why such permission should not be
granted. The applicant has not misused the liberty granted to her.
Her requirement for renewal of her passport is genuine.
4. Learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 did not really
object to grant of relief in this application. He submitted that the
3 of 3 24-ia-3805-22
application for renewal of the Passport preferred by the applicant
is already under process.
5. Considering these submissions, I do not see any reason
as to why permission cannot be granted to the applicant for
renewal/re-issuance of her Passport. Though, the prayer is made
for such renewal/re-issuance of Passport for a period of five years,
at present it appears to be on a higher side and therefore,
permission can be granted for a period of three years.
6. Hence, the following order:
ORDER
i) The Respondent No.2 is permitted to consider the
applicant's application for renewal/re-issuance of
her Passport for a period of three years.
ii) With these observations, the application is
disposed of.
(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
