Madhya Pradesh High Court
Munawar Faruqui vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 March, 2024
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
ON THE 6 th OF MARCH, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 4290 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
MUNAWAR FARUQUI S/O LATE IQBAL FARUQUI, AGED
ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCCUPATION: FREELANCE BUSINESS
DHAL ROAD, NEAR FISH MARKET, JUNAGARH,
DISTRICT JUNAGARH (GUJARAT)
.....APPLICANT
(BY SHRI VEER KUMAR JAIN - SENIOR COUNSEL WITH SHRI ABHISHEK
TUGNAWAT, ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE
OFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION TUKOGANJ,
DISTRICT INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI SANTOSH SINGH THAKUR - G.A.)
This application coming on for orders this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
The present petition is filed under section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashment
of the impugned order dated 14.6.2022 passed by CJM, Indore whereby the
application filed by the applicant seeking permission for issuance of Passport
has been rejected.
2. The applicant is an accused of offence punishable under sections 295-
A, 298, 269, 188 and 34 of IPC registered at FIR No. 02/2021 P.S. Tukoganj,
Indore. It is alleged that applicant had performed in a show without obtaining
Signing time: 3/6/2024 5:37:06
permission from the Administration or following social distancing norms. It was
further alleged that applicant had insulted God and Goddesses of Hindu religion
in the said show. The anticipatory bail application filed by the applicant was
rejected by this Court. Against the said order the applicant filed writ petition (s)
(criminal) No.62/2021 before the Apex court. The Apex Court granted interim
protection to the applicant by order dated 5.12.2021. By order dated 24.4.2023
the Apex Court made the order of interim protection absolute and directed to
release him on ad interim bail on the condition to the satisfaction of the trial
court. In pursuant to the said order the trial court granted him bail on furnishing
personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with the following further conditions :-
(i) till the application is finally decided, on every date the applicant shall
remain present in person.
(i) till final decision of the case, the applicant shall not leave the Country
without permission of the Court.
(iii) the applicant shall not repeat the offence and shall not influence the
witnesses.
(iv) the applicant shall co-operate with the investigation.
3. Thus, the applicant is on bail on the above conditions. The applicant
earlier filed M.Cr.C.No. 15639/2022 which was dismissed as withdrawn with
liberty to move an application before the appropriate Passport Authority. The
applicant filed an application for Passport before the Regional Passport Officer
Foreign Ministry, Ahmedabad on 9.05.2022. The said application was kept
pending because there was "No Objection" by the Court of Law. Thereafter the
applicant moved an application before the CJM, Indore for granting permission
for issuance of Passport which has been rejected by the impugned order.
Signing time: 3/6/2024 5:37:06
4. Counsel for the State submits that he has no instructions whether
chargesheet has been filed or not.
5. Counsel for the applicant submits that right to get Passport is one of
the fundamental right of every citizen including the accused. In support of his
submission, learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of
Apex Court in the matter of Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC
248 and also Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu Vs. CBI (I.A.No. 52346/2021 in
Cr.Appeal No. 1342/2017) wherein it was held by Apex Court that Passport
Authority cannot refuse renewal of the Passport on the ground of pendency of
Criminal Appeal. He also referred the order in the case of Basoo Yadav Vs.
Union of India, 2022 SCC Online All 849 wherein the same law has been
reiterated.
6. The Government of India, Ministry of External Affairs, PSP Division
NO. VI/401/1/5/2019 has issued office memorandum dated 10.10.2019
regarding issuance of Passport to the applicant against whom criminal cases are
pending before the Court of law in which a reference has been made to GSR
570 E dated 25.8.1993. It is mentioned in the said instructions that Passport to
every such citizen shall be issued - for the period specified in order of the Court
referred to above, if the Court specifies a period for which the passport has to
be issued or if no period either for the issue of the passport or for the travel
abroad is specified in such order, the passport shall be issued for a period of
one year.
7. Counsel for the State opposes the prayer and submits that he has not
received any instructions regarding filing of the chargesheet. It is further
submitted that there are number of other criminal cases registered against the
applicant all over India.
Signing time: 3/6/2024 5:37:06
PM
8. After hearing learned counsel for parties and taking into consideration
the aforesaid notificatiom dated 10.10.2019 issued by Government of India,
Ministry of External Affairs and the judgment passed in the cases of Vangala
Kasturi Rangacharyulu (supra), Maneka Gandhi's case wherein it was held that
right to life includes right to have Passport, however in the case of Satwant
Singh Sawhney Vs. D.Ramrathnam, 1967 SCC Online SC 21 it was held that
right to travel abroad is not fndamental right, this Court finds that impugned
order is not sustainable. The Magistrate is directed to decide the application
afresh and to grant NOC for Passport for a period of one year after verifying
the criminal record of the applicant. It is made clear that grant of NOC for
passport would not mean that applicant is also granted permission to travel
abroad. The condition No.2 imposed by the trial court while granting bail to the
applicant in its order dated 6.2.2021 shall remain intact.
With the aforesaid, the M.Cr.C. is allowed and disposed off.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
JUDGE
MK
Signing time: 3/6/2024 5:37:06
