Jharkhand High Court
Dr. Manoranjan Prasad vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Cbi (Ahd) on 6 January, 2025
Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ)No. 176 of 2012
Dr. Manoranjan Prasad ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand through CBI (AHD), Ranchi ... Respondent
With
Cr. Appeal (SJ)No. 746 of 2018
Manoranjan Prasad ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand through CBI ... Respondent
With
Cr. Appeal (SJ)No. 996 of 2018
Manoranjan Prasad @ Dr. Manoranjan Prasad Sinha ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand through CBI ... Respondent
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Alok Anand, Advocate
(in all cases)
For the Respondent : Mr. Anil Kumar, ASGI;
Ms. Chandana Kumari, AC to ASGI;
Mr. Kumar Swapnil, AC to ASGI
(in all cases)
---
07/06.01.2025
IA No. 12815 of 2024 in Cr. Appeal (SJ)No. 176 of 2012;
IA No. 12657 of 2024 in Cr. Appeal (SJ)No. 746 of 2018;
IA No. 12659 of 2024 in Cr. Appeal (SJ)No. 996 of 2018
Heard Mr. Alok Anand, the learned counsel for the appellant
and Mr.Anil Kumar, the learned ASGI.
2. All these interlocutory applications have been preferred by
the appellant for grant of permission to the appellant to visit aboard
for fulfilling his family responsibilities and seeking benefit of
advanced medical consultation with specialists for better treatment
options as well as for a direction upon the respondent no.2, the
Regional Passport Officer to issue passport to the appellant in
accordance with law.
3. It has been submitted by Mr. Alok Anand, the learned counsel
for the appellant that the appellant is aged about 80 years and in
order to visit Galway in Ireland where the younger son of the
appellant has purchased a new home his presence in the
housewarming ceremony is necessary. It has been submitted that
earlier an application was made before the Regional Passport
Officer on 26.08.2024 wherein it has been stated that the
housewarming party was scheduled to be held in October, 2024 but
since the Regional Passport Officer had refused to issue a passport
the said ceremony has been postponed. It has also been submitted
that the appellant is suffering from various aliments and has
undergone a by-pass surgery in 1997 and has chronic
gastrointestinal issues. The learned counsel while referring to
section 6(2) of the Passports Act, 1967 has further submitted that the
same provides discretion for issuance of passport and in such
context, reference has been made to the case of "Syed Abu Ala v.
NCB in Crl. A. 1294 of 2010. It has therefore been prayed that the
Regional Passport Officer be directed to issue passport to the
appellant so that he may visit Galway in Ireland in order to attend
the housewarming ceremony of his younger son.
4. Mr. Anil Kumar, the learned ASGI, has opposed the prayer of
the appellant and has submitted that section 6(2) of the Passports
Act, 1967 does not confer any discretion upon the Court with
respect to issuance of a fresh passport and the judgment which has
been relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant has been
sought to be distinguished while submitting that the same related
to release of the passport and not issuance of a fresh passport. Mr.
Anil Kumar, the learned ASGI has further submitted that the
grounds which have been taken by the appellant for issuance of a
passport are not of such importance which would mandate the
Regional Passport Officer to issue a passport in favour of the
appellant.
5. The appellant, who was an accused in RC Case No. 35A/96,
RC Case No. 38A/96 and RC Case No.45A/96, was convicted after
trial in three different cases and was sentenced accordingly. The
appellant has preferred three separate appeals against the
conviction and sentence being Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 746 of 2018, Cr.
Appeal (SJ) No. 176 of 2012 and Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 996 of 2018. The
appeals are pending before this Court. In the meantime, separate
interlocutory applications have been preferred by the appellant, as
noted above, seeking a direction upon the Regional Passport Officer
to issue passport to the appellant for the reasons mentioned in the
applications. It also appears that though in the application it was
mentioned that the housewarming party was to be held in the
month of October, 2024 in Galway in Ireland but specific statement
has been made in the instant applications that on account of failure
on the part of the appellant to obtain the necessary passport the
said housewarming function has been postponed and is to be
rescheduled and is dependent upon the presence of the appellant at
the said place.
6. Both the learned counsels for the respective parties have
referred to section 6 of the Passports Act, 1967. The said provision
reads as under:
"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."
7. Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967 is of primary
importance as the same relates to the discretion which is to be
exercised in case of proceeding in respect of an offence alleged to
have been committed by the applicant pending before the criminal
Court in India. The said proviso has been dealt with in the case of
"Sabir v. State (NCT of Delhi)" reported in 2023 SCC OnLine Del
4116 wherein it has been held as under:
"11. A perusal of this notification reveals its
circumscribed ambit, which pertains exclusively to the
exemption of individuals from the operation of Clause (f)
of Section 6(2) of the Passports Act. The said notification
lucidly elucidates its sole purpose of granting exemption
to citizens who are the subject of pending criminal
proceedings. As per the said notification, the Courts
before whom the criminal proceedings are pending are
empowered to grant permission to travel abroad, subject
to certain conditions.
12. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for
the appellant had argued that a period of 5 years post
conviction, as mentioned under clause (e) of Section 6(2)
of Passports Act had elapsed, and no permission of this
Court was required for issuance of passport. Having
thoughtfully examined the provisions of the Act and
relevant notification, this Court is unable to agree with
the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the
appellant.
13. With regard to this argument, this Court notes that
clause (e) and (f) of Section 6(2) of the Passport Act are
exclusive of each other. It can be observed that clause (e)
of Section 6(2) pertains to cases in which the applicant
have completed 05 years from the date of conviction,
and, on the other hand, clause (f) of Section 6(2) pertains
to cases which are pending before the court for trial. This
essentially reveals that clause (e) deals with situations
where no appeal from conviction is pending, as in cases
where an appeal would be pending, the provision of
clause (f) would come into play, since it is settled law
that an appeal would amount to continuance of criminal
proceedings. In this regard, a reference can be made to
the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Akhtari Bi v. State
of M.P., (2001) 4 SCC 355, wherein it has been held as
under:
"5. ...Appeal being a statutory right, the trial court's
verdict does not attain finality during pendency of the
appeal and for that purpose his trial is deemed to be
continuing despite conviction..."
14. In the present case, the appellant's appeal against his
conviction is pending before this Court since the year
2010. Consequently, it can be held that the case of the
applicant is covered by clause (f) of Section 6(2) of
the Passports Act, 1967, as the appeal of the applicant
against the conviction recorded by learned Trial Court is
pending before this Court. Thus, the appellant's situation
falls within the purview of the aforesaid notification,
conferring upon this Court, the requisite authority to
exercise discretion and grant exemption."
8. In Syed Abu Ala v. NCB (Supra) while considering the
observations made in Sabir v. State (NCT of Delhi) (Supra) the
Court had come to the conclusion that the Court has the power to
grant exemption on "no objection" for the purpose of issuance/
renewal of passport to the appellant whose criminal appeal is
pending before the Court. The distinguishing feature which has
been sought to be highlighted by the learned ASGI is that in the
case of Syed Abu Ala v. NCB (Supra) prayer was for releasing of
the passport while in the present interlocutory applications the
appellant has prayed for issuance of a passport.
9. Considering the provisions, as noted above, the same would
not mandate this Court to refuse to exercise its discretion with
respect to the issuance of a passport. In fact, the noting made in the
token of the passport which was applied for and which is
Annexure-4/A to the interlocutory applications reveals that three
criminal cases are pending and therefore, Court permission is
required. It also appears to be a fact that the appellant is aged about
80 years and is suffering from different old age related ailments and
he has also undergone several operations which have been
mentioned in these applications itself. In the backdrop of the
aforesaid circumstances, it would be a fit case in which the
discretion is to be exercised by the Court. Accordingly, respondent
no.2 in these interlocutory applications i.e. the Regional Passport
Officer is directed to take necessary steps for issuance of passport
to the appellant on his application made for visiting Galway in
Ireland provided the other necessities relating to issuance of
passport are fulfilled by the appellant. In case it is found that the
appellant has fulfilled all the requisite criteria, the respondent no.2
shall issue a passport to the appellant and consequent to the same
the appellant shall be permitted to visit Galway in Ireland for a
period of six months on the following conditions:
(i) The applicant shall furnish a personal bond of Rs.25,000/-
with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of concerned trial
Court;
(ii) The applicant shall inform the concerned trial Court about
his itinerary of travel including the date of his departure and
arrival;
(iii)The applicant shall not exit immigration at the transit
points, if any;
(iv) The applicant shall also file a copy of e-tickets as well as
passport containing the entry regarding his visit, immediately upon
return to India before the trial Court.
10. All these interlocutory applications stand allowed with the
aforementioned directions and observations.
S.B. (RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.)
