Telangana High Court
Shalibasha Shaik Mohammad vs Union Of India on 8 November, 2024
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA
WRIT PETITION No.29207 OF 2024
Mr. Bala Krishna Mandapati, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Ms. N.V.R.Rajya Lakshmi, learned counsel representing Mr. Gadi Praveen Kumar,
learned Deputy Solicitor General of India for the respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for the
respondent No.3.
ORDER:
The writ petition has been filed for issuance of writ of
mandamus declaring that the action of the respondent
No.2/Regional Passport Officer in rejecting the Police Clearance
Certificate Application of the petitioner as illegal and arbitrary
and for issuance of Police Clearance Certificate to the petitioner.
2. The petitioner is the first accused in Crime No.577 of
2019 pending before the Principal Sessions Judge, Medak at
Sangareddy. The petitioner and one other person were granted
bail by the said Court on 28.11.2019.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner places a job
offer by an entity based in Maputo, Mozambique which reflects
the joining date to 16.11.2024 or on receipt of Visa, whichever is
earlier. Counsel submits that the fundamental rights of the
petitioner cannot be curtailed by the adverse police report and
the consequent refusal on the part of the respondent-passport
authorities to issue Police Clearance Certificate by reason of the
pendency of the criminal proceedings before the Sangareddy
Court. Counsel submits that the petitioner is ready to give an
undertaking that the petitioner would continue to cooperate
with the investigation and will appear virtually before the Court
for that purpose.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the passport authorities
submits that the petitioner failed to state the fact of the
pendency of the criminal proceedings in the concerned
declaration/form by reason of which the petitioner's passport
was extended till 17.10.2033. Counsel submits that the
Regional Passport Authority has no power to issue a Police
Clearance Certificate in the face of an adverse police report
issued by the police authorities.
5. Upon hearing learned counsel appearing for the parties,
this Court is of the view that the petitioner should first
approach the jurisdictional Court for appropriate relief where
the criminal proceedings are pending. This is particularly
important since the Court granted bail to the petitioner subject
to certain conditions including that the petitioner would not
leave the jurisdiction of the concerned police station without
prior permission of the Court. The worth of the undertaking
which the petitioner offers to give has to be seen against the
practicality of the situation. The petitioner seeks to leave the
country for an employment opportunity in Mozambique. The
practicality of virtual appearances is a factor which the
jurisdictional Court must take into consideration and decide.
6. The reliance placed on the judgment of a Single Bench of
the Delhi High Court in Amardeep Singh Bedi v. Union of India1
does not assist the case of the petitioner since the offence in
that case was under The Employees' Provident Fund Act, 1952
and particularly since the petitioner had fulfilled his liability
under the said Act by making the required Provident Fund
deposits. The decision further records that the petitioner had
been granted Anticipatory Bail with the sole condition that the
petitioner must join the investigation whenever directed by the
investigating officer and that no restriction has been imposed by
the Trial Court on the petitioner's travel. These are vital factual
differences between the present case and Amardeep Singh Bedi's
case (supra). Moreover, the petitioner in that case had also
approached the Trial Court for relief before filing the
proceedings before the Trial Court.
2024 SCC Online Del 7039
7. This Court is not inclined to go into the merits of the rival
contentions or the legality of the prayers in the writ petition
since that may prejudice the Trial Court if and when the
petitioner approaches the Court for appropriate directions.
8. W.P.No.29207 of 2024 is disposed of in terms of the
above. Needless to say, the Court at Sangareddy shall not be
influenced by this order and shall decide the application, if filed
by the petitioner, on a clean slate.
9. Interim orders, if any, shall stand vacated and all
connected applications are disposed of. There shall be no order
as to costs.
____________________________________
MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, J
Date: 08.11.2024
SSP/VSU
