Madras High Court
Julius Sornappan Nishanth vs Tamil Nadu State Rep. By on 5 November, 2024
Author: M.Nirmal Kumar
Bench: M.Nirmal Kumar
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.18199 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 05.11.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.18199 of 2024
Julius Sornappan Nishanth ... Petitioner
-vs-
1.Tamil Nadu State Rep. by,
The Inspector of Police,
South Thamaraikulam Police Station,
Kanyakumari District.
2.The Regional Passport Officer,
Bharathi Ula Veethi,
Race Course Road,
Madurai. ... Respondents
Petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023, seeking to call for the records and set aside the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.
503 of 2024 in C.C.No.110 of 2021, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate (FAC) /
Additional Mahila Court, Nagercoil, dated 04.10.2024 and to direct the second
respondent herein to renew the Passport in Passport No.M1842358.
____________
Page 1 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.18199 of 2024
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Muniyandi
For R1 : Mr.K.Sanjai Gandhi
Government Advocate (Criminal side)
For R2 : Mr.S.Pon Senthil Kumaran
ORDER
The petitioner/Accused in C.C.No.110 of 2021, who is facing trial for
the offences under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 341, 323, 324, 506(ii), 153(a) and
295 I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women
Act, 1998, had filed Crl.M.P.No.503 of 2024 in C.C.No.110 of 2021, before the
trial Court, seeking no objection for renewal of his Passport No.M1842358. The
trial Court, by order dated 04.10.2024, dismissed the said petition. Against which,
the petitioner filed the present Criminal Original Petition.
2. The case against the petitioner and his family members is that they
unlawfully assembled themselves and prohibited the de-facto complainant to
install the idol in front of his house, which was removed by the National
Highways Authorities during extension of the National Highway. The petitioner
and his family members conspired together and attacked the de-facto complainant
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.18199 of 2024
by using iron rod and lethal weapons in order to prohibit them to install the idol
and used filthy language and threatened the de-facto complainant with dire
consequences. Hence, the complaint.
3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the
petitioner, along with his entire family members, namely, his parents and brothers
has been implicated as accused in the above case. He further submitted that the
petitioner did not cause any grievous injury or assault the victims in this case. Be
that as it may, the petitioner, being a technically qualified individual, needs to
travel for the advancement of his career and prospects. Since the petitioner's
passport was due for renewal, he applied for its renewal, disclosing the pendency
of the above case. The passport authorities placed the petitioner's application on
hold. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a writ petition seeking the renewal of his
Passport. By order dated 12.09.2024, this Court disposed of the writ petition,
holding that the right to travel abroad is a fundamental right, and that the
petitioner's career and livelihood could be at risk, if he is denied the right to go
abroad. Further, this Court observed that, unless there are extraordinary
circumstances, the trial Court should not deny the relief, and the validity of the
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.18199 of 2024
petitioner's passport will need to be restricted accordingly, and gave liberty to the
petitioner to move the trial Court seeking permission for renewal of his Passport.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that, as a
general practice, passports are renewed for a period of ten years. Since this Court,
in its order, had imposed a caveat that the time limit be restricted, the petitioner's
passport can be renewed with certain limitations.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further referred to the judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu
vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 3549
wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court had directed the passport authority to process the
application of the applicant therein without raising objection relating to pendency
of the Criminal Appeal and granted permission for renewal of the Passport. The
only apprehension is that the petitioner should be available during the trial, to
which the petitioner undertakes to appear and assures that he will not be the cause
of any delay in the progress of the trial.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.18199 of 2024
6. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) for the first
respondent strongly opposed the petitioner's contentions and submitted that the
petitioner, along with others, had committed the offence, causing disharmony
between two groups by attacking the de-facto complainant and damaging the idol.
Further, in this case, three persons have been injured. Upon receiving
information from the hospital, the Police went there, received the complaint, and
registered the First Information Report. Thereafter, on completion of the
investigation, the respondent Police filed a charge sheet. In this case, totally,
there are five accused, who are facing trial. The trial can be completed within a
stipulated time, as there are only a limited number of witnesses, namely L.W.1 to
L.W.13, and hence, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) strongly
opposed the Petition.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent Passport
Authority submitted that in this case, the petitioner is an under-trial and not a
convict. It is the regular practice that when the Passport Authorities become
aware of any criminal case pending against an applicant, the passport is put on
hold. If there is no objection from the concerned Court, the passport may be
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.18199 of 2024
renewed. Normally, individuals facing criminal cases are not granted the standard
renewal period of ten years, and the renewal is restricted based on the Court's
order. If appropriate orders are issued, the Passport Authority has no objection to
renew the petitioner's passport.
8. Considering the submissions and after perusing the materials, this
Court finds that the right to travel is a fundamental right and cannot be denied
merely because a criminal case is pending against the applicant. Admittedly, the
petitioner is only an under-trial and not a convict and the other accused in this
case are all his family members. The issue arises from an emotional outburst, and
nothing more. Furthermore, as a diploma holder, he needs to travel abroad in
furtherance of his career and life prospects. Now, the charge sheet copies have
been handed over and the case has been posted for trial on 26.11.2024. In view
of the same, this Court finds that the impugned order is not sustainable. Hence,
the impugned order is set aside and the learned Judicial Magistrate, Additional
Mahila Court (FAC), Nagercoil, is directed to give no objection for renewal of the
petitioner's passport for a period of five years, subject to the condition that
whenever the petitioner intends to travel abroad for employment, he must file an
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.18199 of 2024
affidavit detailing his travel itinerary, place of stay, communication details, and an
undertaking that his identity will not be disputed at any point of time.
Furthermore, the petitioner must agree to the recording of evidence and ensure
that his travel will not cause any delay in the progress of the trial and he shall
appear before the trial Court on the specified dates when his presence is
absolutely necessary.
9. With the above directions, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed.
NCC : Yes / No 05.11.2024
Index : Yes / No
smn2
Note:- Issue order copy on 07.11.2024.
To:-
1.The Judicial Magistrate (FAC) /
Additional Mahila Court, Nagercoil,
2.The Inspector of Police,
South Thamaraikulam Police Station,
Kanyakumari District.
3.The Regional Passport Officer,
Bharathi Ula Veethi,
Race Course Road,
Madurai.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.18199 of 2024
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.18199 of 2024
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
smn2
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.18199 of 2024
05.11.2024
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
