Jharkhand High Court

Rajeev Singh Dugal vs The State Of Jharkhand on 12 May, 2022

                                                 1

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                             Cr.M.P. No. 559 of 2022
             Rajeev Singh Dugal, aged 64 years, son of Purushottam Singh Dugal,
             resident of Holding No.4, Jubilee Road, Near Beldih Triangle, Bistupur, P.O.
             & P.S. Bistupur, Town Jamshedpur, District Singhbhum East
                                                                  ... Petitioner
                                         -Versus-
             The State of Jharkhand                               ... Opposite Party
                                              -----

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

-----

For the Petitioner : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Mr. Rishav Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party-State : Mr. P.C. Sinha, A.C. to G.A.-III

-----

04/12.05.2022. Heard Mr. Indrajit Sinha assisted by Mr. Rishav Kumar, learned counsel

for the petitioner and Mr. P.C. Sinha, learned counsel for the State.

2. This petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 01.02.2022

passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Jamshedpur in connection

with Bistupur P.S. Case No.87 of 2020 corresponding to G.R. Case No.659 of

2021 whereby the learned court has been pleased to reject the petition

dated 19.01.2022 preferred by the petitioner for grant of No Objection

Certificate for the purpose of renewal of the petitioner's passport, pending

in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Jamshedpur.

3. The informant namely Suraj Kumar, Junior Engineer, Swarnarekha

Project cum Deputation Magistrate, Bistupur, Jamshedpur got the

information that the Spa in the Alcor Hotel was open and some

arrangement for parties were being made during prohibitory lock down

period of COVID-19 and on that ground the FIR was lodged under Sections

188, 269, 270 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 54 of the Disaster

Management Act, 2005 and Section 3 of the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897.

4. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

charge-sheet has been submitted in that case and cognizance has been

taken and the petitioner is facing trial. He further submits that for renewal

of passport, the petitioner had earlier preferred W.P.(C) No.2574 of 2021

which was disposed of vide order dated 06.12.2021 with direction to file

fresh representation before the authority concerned for taking decision on

the prayer of renewal of passport. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner filed

representation which was disposed of by the Passport Officer, Ranchi and

directed the petitioner to obtain No Objection Certificate from the concerned

court. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner filed a petition on 19.01.2022 which

was considered by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and the same has

been rejected. He also submits that the case of the petitioner comes under

Sub-section 2(f) of Section 6 of the Passports Act, 1967. He further submits

that the petitioner was required to go abroad with regard to his business

and for that renewal was required to be done, which has been refused. He

also submits that refusal to renew a Passport infringes the petitioner's Right

to Equality and the Right to Personal Liberty as enshrined under Articles 14

and 21 of the Constitution of India, as has been held by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in several judgments. He relied upon paragraph 5 of the

judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satish

Chandra Verma v. Union of India & others, reported in 2019 SCC

OnLine SC 2048.

5. Paragraph 5 of the said judgment is quoted herein below"

"5. The right to travel abroad is an important basic human right for it nourishes independent and self-determining creative character of the individual, not only by extending his freedoms of action, but also by extending the scope of his experience. The right also extends to private life; marriage, family and friendship are humanities which can be rarely affected through refusal of freedom to go abroad and clearly

show that this freedom is a genuine human right. (See : Mrs. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248). In the said judgment, there is a reference to the words of Justice Douglas in Kent v. Dulles 357 US 116 (1958) which are as follows:

"Freedom to go abroad has much social value and represents the basic human right of great significance."

6. By way of referring Annexure-B of the counter affidavit filed by the

State, Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

police has verified and given a report that there is no difficulty in renewing

the passport and in spite of that the learned court below has not issued No

Objection Certificate. He further submits that the learned court below has

refused to issue No Objection Certificate on two grounds; firstly that the

petitioner was having ill intention of getting undue advantage by concealing

the material facts and secondly the petitioner has not disclosed the time by

when he will return after attending the Seminar. He further submits that the

petitioner has got no intention to flee away as he is having business at

Jamshedpur.

7. On the other hand, Mr. P.C. Sinha, learned counsel for the State

submits that the petitioner was facing four criminal cases, which was

concealed in filling up the form and the learned court has rightly not issued

No Objection Certificate.

8. On perusal of the nature of the case, it appears that the petitioner is

facing case with regard to Disaster Management Act, 2005 and Epidemic

Diseases Act, 1897 and the alleged sections of both the Acts are bailable in

nature. There is no allegation against the petitioner that he is involved in

taking Government money and there is no likelihood that the petitioner will

take a flight and will not return to the country. The police report is in favour

of the petitioner. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case

of Satish Chandra Verma (supra) and in the case of Maneka Gandhi v.

Union of India, reported in (1978) 1 SCC 248 that the right to travel

abroad is an important basic human right. Sub-section 2(f) of Section 6 of

the Passports Act, 1967 will be applicable to the case of the petitioner.

Section 6 of the Passports Act, 1967 reads as follows:

"6. Refusal of passports, travel documents, etc.--(1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the passport authority shall refuse to make an endorsement for visiting any foreign country under clause (b) or clause (c) of sub-section (2) of Section 5 on any one or more of the following grounds, and on no other ground, namely:--

(a) that the applicant may, or is likely to, engage in such country in activities prejudicial to the sovereignty and integrity of India;

(b) that the presence of the applicant in such country may, or is likely to, be detrimental to the security of India;

(c) that the presence of the applicant in such country may, or is likely to, prejudice the friendly relations of India with that or any other country;

(d) that in the opinion of the Central Government the presence of the applicant in such country is not in the public interest.

(2) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the passport authority shall refuse to issue a passport or travel document for visiting any foreign country under clause (c) of sub-section (2) of Section 5 on any one or more of the following grounds, and on no other ground, namely:--

(a) that the applicant is not a citizen of India;

(b) that the applicant may, or is likely to, engage outside India in activities prejudicial to the sovereignty and integrity of India;

(c) that the departure of the applicant from India may, or is likely to, be detrimental to the security of India;

(d) that the presence of the applicant outside India may, or is likely to, prejudice the friendly relations of India with any foreign country;

(e) that the applicant has, at any time during the period of five years immediately preceding the date of his application, been convicted by a court in India for any offence involving moral turpitude and sentenced in respect thereof to imprisonment for not less than two years;

(f) that proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant are pending before a criminal court in India;

(g) that a warrant or summons for the appearance, or a warrant for the arrest, of the applicant has been issued by a court under any law for the time being in force or that an order prohibiting the departure from India of the applicant has been made by any such court;

(h) that the applicant has been repatriated and has not reimbursed the expenditure incurred in connection with such repatriation;

(i) that in the opinion of the Central Government the issue of a passport or travel document to the applicant will not be in the public interest."

9. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vangala Kasturi

Rangacharyulu v. Central Bureau of Investigation , in Criminal

Appeal No. 1342 of 2017 has considered no objection for renewal of the

passport and directed to renew the passport of that appellant.

10. Admittedly, at present, the petitioner has not been convicted. The

petitioner is facing trial and the sections, against which the petitioner is

facing trial, are bailable. The petitioner is not facing any defalcation

proceeding of huge amount. The petitioner is required to travel abroad for

his business purpose. Moreover, the petitioner is having passport which is

required to be renewed.

11. It is a duty of the authority concerned to find out suitability of the

Visa to be granted for how many days in favour of the petitioner, that is not

the concerned of the court. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Jamshedpur shall issue No Objection Certificate in favour of the petitioner.

12. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 01.02.2022 passed by the

learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Jamshedpur in connection with Bistupur

P.S. Case No.87 of 2020 corresponding to G.R. Case No.659 of 2021 is

modified to the above extent.