[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
James Leonard Watson vs Union Of India And Ors. on 17 March, 2026
Author: N. J. Jamadar
Bench: N. J. Jamadar
2026:BHC-AS:13111
910 APL 492-26.DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 492 OF 2026
James Leonard Watson ..Applicant
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents
Mr. Zaman Ali, for the Applicant.
Mr. P S Gujar, for the Respondent No. 1 & 2 - UOI.
Mr. Kaushik Mhatre, Spl. PP a/w Mr. Sanket Dhawan, for the
Respondent No. 3 - State.
Mr. D J Haldankar, APP for the Respondent - State.
CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J.
DATE : 17th MARCH 2026
Oral Order:
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
2. By this application the Applicant - a Foreign National
seeks a direction to the Respondent No. 2 - Foreigners Regional
Registration Officer, Bureau of Immigration, Ministry of Home
Affairs, Govt. of India to allow the applicant's application for an
exit permit forthwith and allow him to leave India.
3. The applicant is arraigned in the CR No. 456/2025
registered at Bhiwandi Taluka Police Station, Bhiwandi, for the
offences punishable under Sections 299, 302, 223, 3(5), 126(2)
of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Section 3 of the
910 APL 492-26.DOC
Maharashtra Prevention and Eradication of Human Sacrifice
and Other Inhuman, Evil and Aghori Practices and Black Magic
Act, 2013 and Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946.
4. By an order dated 29th October, 2025, the learned
Additional Sessions Judge released the applicant on bail,
subject to conditions including that, the applicant shall not
travel abroad without obtaining prior permission of the Court of
Session till completion of period of his visa or till conclusion of
the said case whichever was earlier.
5. The applicant filed an application being Criminal MA No.
12/2026 before the Court of Session seeking permission to
travel to United States of America purportedly to attend to his
ailing mother, who is stated to be suffering from Stage II, HER2
- positive breast cancer.
6. By an order dated 27th February, 2026, the learned
Additional Sessions Judge allowed the said application and
permitted the applicant to travel abroad during the period 09 th
March, 2026 to 18th April, 2026.
7. On the basis of the aforesaid order dated 28th February,
2026, the applicant filed an application for an exit permit before
910 APL 492-26.DOC
the Respondent No. 2. On 10th March, 2026, the Respondent No.
2 has informed the applicant that the application was not being
processed further as the Investigating Agency has raised
objection.
8. The applicant has thus invoked the inherent jurisdiction
of this Court.
9. Mr. Ali, the learned Counsel for the applicant, submitted
that, once the jurisdictional Court has permitted the applicant
to travel abroad, the Respondent No. 2 could not have declined
to process the application for exit permit. The denial of the exit
permit frustrates the order passed by the Competent Court. The
course adopted by the Respondent No. 2 is patently illegal.
Reliance was placed on an order passed by the learned Single
Judge of this Court in the case of Cong Ling Chinese National
Vs. FRRO Bureau of Immigration & Ors .1, wherein this Court
has deprecated the action of the FRRO in withholding the exit
permit despite the acquittal of the applicant therein.
10. In opposition to this, Mr. Mhatre, the learned Special P. P.
submitted that, the charges against the applicant are grave. The
prosecution has preferred a Revision Application being Cri.
1 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 2147
910 APL 492-26.DOC
Revision Application (st) No. 5457/2026 assailing the legality
and correctness of the order passed by the learned Sessions
Judge. Having regard to the gravity of the accusation and the
circumstances in which the applicant was apprehended
alongwith incriminating books and documents, the applicant
cannot be permitted to leave the country. Lest, the prosecution
would suffer grave prejudice.
11. At this stage and in this proceeding, this Court cannot
delve into the legality, propriety and correctness of the order
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The
prosecution would be required to assail the same in the
proceeding; which it has already filed. What has to be seen in
this application is legality and justifiability of the action of
Respondent No. 2 in declining to process the application for exit
permit. The stated reason of refusal to process the application
for exit permit is the objection raised by the Investigating
Agency.
12. The situation which thus obtains is that, there is an order
passed by the Competent Court which permits the applicant to
travel abroad. The said order was passed in pursuance with an
earlier bail order, by which the applicant was directed not to
910 APL 492-26.DOC
leave the country without obtaining the prior permission of the
said Court. Can the Investigating Agency be permitted to
overreach the orders of the Court and defeat the same by filing
objection before the FRRO, is the question.
13. In the considered view of this Court, such a course cannot
be countenanced. A judicial order of a Competent Court cannot
be denuded of its meaning and content, in an indirect manner.
Till the order permitting the applicant to travel abroad is in
force, it commands obedience by the authorities. The binding
efficacy and force of the order cannot be permitted to be diluted
or otherwise defeated. If the Investigating Agency was aggrieved
by the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge
permitting the applicant to travel abroad, the proper course for
the Investigating Agency was to immediately assail the said
order before the appropriate court. The FRRO was therefore not
at all justified in refusing to process the application further on
the ground that, the Investigating Agency has raised the
objection.
14. Having regard to the limited nature of the controversy
before this Court, the application stands allowed with a
direction to FRRO (R-2) to process the application for exit permit
910 APL 492-26.DOC
of the applicant within a period of two days from the
communication of this order.
15. The FRRO shall have due regard to the order passed by
the learned Sessions Court on 27th February, 2026 permitting
the applicant to travel abroad and pass an appropriate order in
accordance with law.
16. The application thus stands disposed.
17. All concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this
order.
[N. J. JAMADAR, J.]
