Narinder Pal Singh vs Union Of India And Others
2024 Latest Caselaw 7958 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Narinder Pal Singh vs Union Of India And Others on 16 April, 2024

                                        Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050612



           IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                         AT CHANDIGARH

102                                     2024:PHHC:050612
                                        CWP No. 4880 of 2024
                                        Date of Decision:16.04.2024

Narinder Pal Singh

                                                      ....Petitioner

                                        vs.

Union of India and others

                                                      ....Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL


Present:     Mr. Tushar Sharma, Advocate
             for the petitioner

             Ms. Saigeeta Srivastava, Senior Panel Counsel
             for the Union of India

             Mr. Aman Dhir, DAG, Punjab

                           ***

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL)

1. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of

the Constitution of India is seeking direction to respondent No. 2 to issue

him passport.

2. An FIR under Sections 25 of Arms Act, 1959 and Sections 4

and 5 of Explosives Act, 1884 was registered against the petitioner. He came

to be convicted and was awarded sentence of 12 years. He has already

undergone the awarded sentence. The petitioner vide application dated

18.07.2022 has applied for passport, however, the same has not been issued.

3. Mr. Tushar Sharma, Advocate, submits that petitioner was lastly

1 of 2

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050612

CWP No. 4880 of 2024 -2- 2024:PHHC:050612

convicted vide judgment dated 18.07.2005, thus, rigour of Section 6(2) of

the Passport Act, 1967 is not applicable.

4. Mr. Aman Dhir, DAG, Punjab, submits that petitioner was

involved in 9 criminal cases. He was acquitted in one case and convicted in

8 cases. The last judgment of conviction was passed on 18.07.2005. He has

already suffered awarded sentence. As on day, no case is pending against

him.

5. Faced with this, Ms. Saigeeta Srivastava, Advocate assures the

Court that passport authority would decide application of petitioner in the

light of statement of learned State counsel. She further submits that needful

shall be done within 8 weeks from today.

6. Counsel for the petitioner agrees to the aforesaid arrangement.

7. In the wake of statement of both sides, the petition stands

disposed of.

(JAGMOHAN BANSAL) JUDGE 16.04.2024 paramjit

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable: No

2 of 2