Tripura High Court
Sri Soumen Sarkar vs The State Of Tripura on 12 March, 2021
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(C)No.200 of 2020
Sri Soumen Sarkar,
son of Sri Gopal Chandra Sarkar,
resident of 69/2 Gangali Road,
Netaji Chowmuhani, Agartala,
District : West Tripura, PIN : 799001
----Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. The State of Tripura,
to be represented by the Secretary,
Home Department, Government of Tripura,
New Secretariat Complex, P.S. New Capital Complex,
P.O. Kunjaban, Agartala, West Tripura, PIN : 799006
2. The Director General of Police,
Government of Tripura,
Police Head Quarters, Fire Brigade Chowmuhani,
P.O. Agartala, PIN : 799001
3. The Superintendent of Police,
Government of Tripura, New Secretariat Complex,
P.S. New Capital Complex, P.O. Kunjaban,
Agartala, West Tripura, PIN : 799006
4. The Union of India,
to be represented by the Secretary,
Union Home Secretary, Home Department,
Government of India, North Block,
New Delhi-110001
5. The Commissioner (Immigration),
Bureau of Immigration,
Office address : East-VIII, Level-V,
Sector-1, R.K. Puram, New Delhi-110066,
Tel No: 011-26102622(Telefax)
6. The Regional Passport Officer,
Regional Passport Office, Kolkata,
4 Brabourne Rd, 1st Floor, Radha Bazar,
Lal Bazar, Kolkata, West Bengal 700001, India
---- Respondent(s)
Page 2 of 20
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. A. Roy Barman, Adv.
Mr. K. Nath, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. B. Majumder, Asst. S.G.
Mr. S. Kar Bhowmik, Sr. Adv.
Mr. A. Bhattacharjee, Adv.
Date of delivery of
Judgment & Order : 12.03.2021
Whether fit for
reporting : YES.
HON‟BLE MR. JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA
Judgment & Order(Oral)
By means of this petition, filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the lookout circular
dated 28.01.2020 by Bureau of Immigration and communication dated
30.09.2018 written by the Superintendent of Police, West Tripura to
the Regional Passport Officer at Kolkata. He has further challenged the
letters dated 14.10.2019 and 13.11.2019 written by the
Superintendent of Police, West Tripura to the Bureau of Immigration.
2. The writ petitioner is a non-resident Indian and he has
been hosting a news portal named and styled as Tripura Infoway.com
which is registered in U.S.A. The petitioner also holds the position of
editor of the said news portal. The said news portal has become the
target, according to the petitioner, for fearlessly exposing the cause of
common people. The parents of the petitioner residing permanently in
Tripura. His father is an octogenarian whereas his mother is a
Page 3 of 20
septuagenarian. They have become subjected to harassment by the
police. He and his parents had been threatened and intimidated by the
police personnel. Smti. Neuti Sarkar, the mother of the petitioner had
approached this High Court by filing a writ petition being
WP(C)No.52/2019 wherein the Superintendent of Police, West Tripura
had been directed to assuage the petitioner‟s parents and visit their
residence after giving notice for appointment in their convenient time
considering their age, if the police were in need of any information
from them [see the order dated 17.01.2019 delivered in
WP(C)No.52/2019]. Against the petitioner, cognizance under Section
500 of the IPC was taken by the Sessions Judge, West Tripura,
Agartala for alleged streaming of false content in his news portal. The
said case had been registered as CR 04/2017.
3. Sri Gautam Das, a leader of the ruling party at the
relevant point of time filed a complaint against the petitioner for
streaming a news item on 22.10.2017 in his portal. Cognizance was
taken under Section 500 of the IPC by the order dated 07.12.2017 in
C.R.373/2017 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Tripura. Another
complaint being CR01 of 2018 was launched by Sri Saheed
Choudhury, the then Minister, Department of Youth Affairs and Sports,
Government of Tripura alleging defamation and cognizance was taken
by the Sessions Judge on 05.04.2018 under Section 500 of the IPC.
Again, another complaint was lodged by Sri Biplab Kumar Deb, Chief
Page 4 of 20
Minister of Tripura through the Public Prosecutor, District-West Tripura
taking aid of section 199(2) of the Cr.P.C. By the order dated
04.05.2019 cognizance has been taken against the petitioner under
Section 500 of the IPC. One „false‟ compliant had been to the police
station on 21.09.2018 to the Officer-in-Charge East Agartala Police
Station by a person alleging that at about 11 hrs., the petitioner called
him and demanded a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with warning that if the
said demand was not met, the „information‟ regarding his involvement
in drug smuggling would be broadcast. On the basis of the said written
complaint, an investigation was initiated under Section 157 of the
Cr.P.C. on entering the substance of the compliant in East Agartala
P.S. G.D. Entry No.37 dated 21.09.2018. Another compliant of that
nature was also filed in East Agartala P.S. and on the basis of the said
complaint, East P.S. case No.207 under section 384/511 of the IPC
was registered. The petitioner has filed one criminal petition being
Criminal petition No. 51 of 2019 in this High Court for quashing East
Agartala P.S. Case No.208 Eag/2004 under Section 384/511 of the
IPC.
4. The petitioner has asserted that all these criminal cases
have been filed by different persons in power for silencing his news
portal for exposing the truth in the interest of the common people. To
grind further, there had been request from the Superintendent of
Police that the petitioner‟s passport and visa be cancelled. The
Page 5 of 20
petitioner was searched in his parents residence on perception or
information that he was staying there. Thereafter, lookout circular has
been issued against the petitioner. The police has become extremely
aggressive and they had started showing their muscle in order to
harass the family of the petitioner. One survey has been carried out
by Mr. Bijay Methew Associate Professor of Information System, Rider
University, New Jersy and it has been assessed that the petitioner‟s
portal carries high quality news and information. His portal specializes
in content, related to the North Eastern State of India with additional
focus on National Indian news. Its investigative content, according to
Mr. Methew, is clear in its conclusion and most part does not exceed
advance evidence.
5. The petitioner has quite robustly asserted that attempt to
get the petitioner‟s passport impounded cannot get any support from
law as provided by Passport Act, 1967. Section 10(3) provides that
the passport authority may impound or cause to impound or revoke a
passport or travel document, if the passport authority is satisfied that
the holder of the passport is wrongfully possessing the same. Such
action can be resorted if the passport or travel document was obtained
by suppression of material information or on the basis of wrong
information provided by holder of the passport or travel document or
the holder of the passport has failed to comply with the notice
requiring him to deliver of the same on requisition.
Page 6 of 20
6. The Bureau of Immigration headquarters issued lookout
circular (LOC) against LOC suspect No.1847354 i.e. the petitioner.
Bureau of the Immigration headquarters, by their communication
dated 28.01.2020, informed the Superintendent of Police, West
Tripura that one regular LOC in respect of the petitioner has been
extended till 07.01.2020. The petitioner has categorically asserted
that there had no valid reason at all to issue LOC against the
petitioner. The action of the police as such has been designed to
restrict the petitioner‟s visit to India. In para-29, 30 and 31 the
petitioner has asserted as under :
"29. That, the Petitioner is ready to join the
investigation and face the criminal cases maliciously
lodged against him. The Petitioner is not absconding.
Though LOC is nowhere defined in the Cr.P.C., but in
common parlance, LOC means a document, used by
the authority to check, prevent and monitor
effectively the entry or exit of a person, wanted by
the law enforcement agencies. Normally, LOC is
issued when a person is absconding in a particular
case against him and there is fear, that, he may leave
the country.
30. That, the Petitioner is not absconding. As the
petitioner is presently staying in USA, the Petitioner
always responded to Police email notices, co-
operated with authorities. Petitioner is not in a
position to join investigation. Moreover, if the
Petitioner visit Tripura, there is tangible
apprehension, that, he may be subjected to
extrajudicial killing, because due to the fearless
exposure of the People in power, through
Tripurainfoway.com, the Petitioner has earned the
wreath and vengeance of those powerful people
whose misdeeds had been exposed by the
Tripurainfoway.com.
31. That, the Petitioner could not procure the LOC
issued against the Petitioner. But from the email,
communicated between the Bureau of Immigration
and the Superintendent of Police, West Tripura
District, is found, that, regular LOC against the
Petitioner has been extended till 17.11.2020. The
Page 7 of 20
Respondents may be directed to produce the LOC
before the Hon‟ble Court."
7. The petitioner has reiterated his submission that the
action of the Superintendent of Police, West Tripura asking the
passport officer to impound/cancel the passport of the petitioner
without compliance of the provisions of Section 10(3) of the Passport
Act, 1987 is grossly illegal. The respondents have become hand in
glove to silence the voice of his fearless news portal which has been
continually exposing the people in power for advancing the cause of
the common people.
8. In reply to the averments of the petitioner, the
respondents No.4 and 6 i.e. Union of India and Regional Passport
Officer by filing their reply have clearly stated that when the passport
No.Z1819268 was issued in favour of the petitioner, it was issued by
the Consulate General of India, New York. On 28.07.2008. The said
passport was suspended on 20.03.2015 after recording the remark
"acquired U.S. citizenship." They have not disclosed that any action is
in contemplation against the petitioner. However, they have admitted
that the request of the police authority has been forwarded to the
Assistant Consulate Office at New York on 05.08.2019.
9. The respondent No.5 has categorically stated that as per
MHGA Guidelines dated 27.10.2010 (para-8/F)"the legal liability of the
action taken by immigration authorities in pursuance of LOC rest with
originating agency and not with Bureau of Immigration. Bureau of
Page 8 of 20
Immigration is only the custodian of LOCs at immigration check post
(ICPs) at the behest of originating agency. Further, the legal action
taken by immigration authorities in pursuance of LOC rest with the
originating agency." They have categorically stated that Bureau of
Immigration(BOI) has no objection if LOC is recalled or withdrawn by
the originator, the Superintendent of Police, West Tripura District or
the concerned court directs for the same.
10. The respondents No.1, 2 3 by filing the reply has
contended that lookout circular has been issued for the interest of
investigation in the following cases :
"1. East Agartala PS case No.2018EAGI85, dated
28/09/2018. U/s 501(b) IPC.
2. East Agartala PS case No.2018EAG204, dated
29/08/2018. U/s 384/511 IPC.
3. East Agartala PS case No.2018EAG218, dated
22/01/2018. U/s 468/469/501/120(B)IPC.
4. West Agartala PS case No.2019EAG084, dated
27/04 2019. U/s 120B/501/509/384/506 IPC & 67
IT Act."
11. The respondents No.1, 2 and 3 have, however, denied
that the petitioner was ever threatened and intimidated by the police
personnel of West Tripura district by visiting his residence on odd
hours. They have also denied that the police has been trying to
muzzle the news portal of the petitioner.
12. All the cases as referred above, according to those
respondents are still under investigation. Those respondents have
categorically stated that at their instance, the following LOCs were
issued:
Page 9 of 20
"LOC No.1/SIC/ACK/LOC-2018-12510 dated
17.11.18. w.e.f. 18.11.2018 to 17.11.2019 and
subsequently LOC No.1/SIC/ACK/LOC-2020-7889
dated 05.11.2020 w.e.f.05.11.2020 to 17.11.2021
had been issued [Annexure-E to the reply filed by the
respondents No.1, 2 and 3].
Even, they have admitted that the Superintendent of
Police has issued letters for domain cancellation of the U.S. company
and according to them, the same was done in the interest of justice.
According to them, the notices under Section 41A of the Cr.P.C. were
issued against the petitioner to appear before the investigating officer
in cases as referred below :
"1. East Agartala PS case No.2018EAGI85, dated
28/09/2018, U/s 501(b) IPC.
2. East Agartala PS case No.2018EAG204, dated
29/08/2018, U/s 384/511 IPC.
3. East Agartala PS case No.2018EAG218, dated
22/01/2018, U/s 468/469/501/120(B) IPC."
It has been also stated that investigations are in progress
in those cases.
13. The respondents have admitted that despite the
complaint filed against two police officers, the petitioner‟s complaint
has not been registered [see para-23]. According to the respondents,
communication made to the U.S. Company was not for defaming the
petitioner but in the interest of investigation but there is no
explanation in respect of referring the petitioner as "criminal" in their
letter. According to those respondents, the petitioner‟s case falls under
Section 10(3)(e) and Section 10(3)(h) of the Passport Act. Those
provisions are reproduced hereunder for purpose of reference :
Page 10 of 20
10(3) the passport authority may impound or cause
to be impounded or revoke a passport or travel
document---
...................
(e) if proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to
have been committed by the holder of the passport
or travel document are pending before a criminal
court in India ;
............................
(h) if it is brought to the notice of the passport
authority that a warrant or summons for the
appearance, or a warrant for the arrest, of the holder
of the passport or travel document has been issued
by a court under any law for the time being in force
or if an order prohibiting the departure from India or
the holder of the passport or other travel document
has been made by any such court and the passport
authority is satisfied that warrant or summons has
been so issued or an order has been so made....."
The respondents No.1, 2 and 3 has stated that LOC has
been issued against the petitioner in the interest of investigation.
14. Finally, the respondents No.1, 2 and 3 have contended
that no case has been made out for interference under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India. Even though, the communication made in
the format as referred in the letter dated 18.11.2018 [Annexure-A to
the reply filed by the respondents No.1, 2 and 3] is not available with
the reply but from the communication dated 15.11.2019 it appears
that since the petitioner is involved in four criminal cases under West
Tripura district and a warrant of arrest had been issued against him by
the court of the Judicial Magistrate (1st class), Court No.7, Agartala
LOC was issued at their instance.
From the reply filed by the respondent No.6 it has
become crystal clear that Indian Passport Authority does not have any
authority to cancel or impound the passport of the petitioner,
inasmuch as the petitioner‟s passport has not been issued by the
Indian Passport Authority.
15. Mr. A. Roy Barman, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner has submitted that there is no warrant issued by any court
pending against the petitioner. That apart, the petitioner has by filing
an affidavit on 25.11.2020 has undertaken that as soon as he shall
arrive in India and thereafter at Agartala, he shall inform the
concerned police station where criminal cases have been filed against
him.
16. Mr. Roy Barman, learned counsel has quite emphatically
submitted that by requesting the passport authority to impound the
passport „without any evidence‟ that the petitioner is liable to be
proceeded under Section 10(3) of the Passport Act. In the name of
investigation‟s interest, the police cannot function to the detriment of
the petitioner‟s liberty. Mr. Roy Barman, learned counsel has
categorically submitted that no court has ever issued any order for
impounding the passport or cancelling it. Despite that, the police had
jealously approached the Regional Passport Officer to ensure that the
passport of the petitioner is impounded.
17. Mr. Roy Barman, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner has further submitted that there is no ground for issuing
LOC against the petitioner. The ground that has been assigned is that
against him three criminal cases are being investigated. The
respondent No.5 has without any inhibition stated that BOI will have
no objection if the LOC against the petitioner is withdrawn.
18. Mr. S. Kar Bhowmik, learned senior counsel appearing for
the respondents No.1, 2 and 3 have submitted that since the
petitioner was defying the notices under Section 41A of the Cr.P.C.,
the said step was taken. Having referred to the office memorandum
dated 27.10.2010 [Annexure-15 to the writ petition], it has been
contended that following the direction given by the High court of Delhi
in Bikram Sharma versus Union of India it has been observed that
there are large number of statutory bodies in the level of the centre
and states which perform judicial functions and are vested with, for
purpose of conducting enquiries upon receiving complaints, the
powers of a civil court. These include the National Human Rights
Commission (NHRC), NCW, National Commission for Protection of
Child Rights. Those statutory bodies however have not been vested
with powers of a criminal court and do not have powers to enforce
criminal law. The MHA memorandum has clearly laid down that the
request for issuance of LOCs cannot emanate from statutory bodies
like NCW. If at all, such bodies should bring the necessary facts to the
notice of the law enforcing agencies like the police which will then
make the request for the issuance of the LOC upon an assessment of
the situation as narrated in format and strictly in terms of procedure
outlined for the purpose.
19. Mr. Roy Barman, learned counsel has referred to the
special petition [I.A.01 of 2021] where the petitioner has brought to
the notice of this court that his father namely Gopal Chandra Sarkar
[aged 81 years] had been admitted in the ICU of Neurology
Department at GB pant hospital on March 2, 2021. A certificate of the
consultant neuro-surgeon has been annexed with the said special
application as Annexure-16. The petitioner‟s father has been suffering
from acute lecunaiar infracts in left internal capsule, basic ganglia and
corona radiate. But for the lookout notice the petitioner could not be
by the side of his aged and ailing father.
20. Mr. Roy Barman, learned counsel has submitted that
there is no warrant pending against the petitioner. The last warrant as
issued had been recalled by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Court
No.7 by his order dated 23.02.2021. The warrant has been recalled
and the personal attendance of the petitioner has been dispensed
with. The petitioner has contended that the petitioner‟s human right of
travelling to the country of his origin has been arbitrarily curtailed by
the police in the name of investigating „fake‟ cases. Be that as it may,
since the petitioner has undertaken to appear before the police, this
court may consider his case for recalling LOC or for directing the
respondents to withdraw the same forthwith.
21. Mr. Roy Barman, learned counsel has relied on a decision
of the Delhi High Court in Sumer Singh Salkan and Others versus
Asstt. Director and Others reported in II(2010) DMC 666 where
Delhi High Court has observed as under :
"10. In the present case, the LOC was issued against
the petitioner soon after the registration of FIR. It is
alleged by the petitioner that LOC was issued in view
of the fact that complainant‟s close relative was an
IPS officer. This allegation of the petitioner finds
support from the fact that the punishment stated by
the police to Interpol in respect of the offences
committed has been deliberately given as 10 years
while the prescribed punishment is maximum 3 years
imprisonment. The petitioner‟s description of being
„violent and dangerous‟ also has been added
malafidly, with ulterior motive, in view of the fact
that allegations against petitioner were of only of
emotional torture. Offence of kidnapping was given
as the reasons for issuance of RCN, which on the
representation of petitioner was removed. It is
apparent that the LOC & RCN were issued for
extraneous reasons by an officer who was not
authorized. The petitioner has also highlighted the
difference in statements made by witnesses on
different occasions. Since the matter pertaining to
these offences is subjudiced, it will not be
appropriate to comment on this aspect but suffice it
to say that the action against the petitioner of
issuing RCN was uncalled for in view of the fact that
neither offence, for which the petitioner is facing
trial in India, is an extraditable offence, nor any
request for extradition of the petitioner has been
made for the last 7 years despite knowing
whereabouts of the petitioner. I, therefore, consider
it a fit case for quashing the RCN issued against the
petitioner at the behest of Delhi Police. The RCN, is
therefore, hereby quashed."
22. It has been further observed in that decision that if the
petitioner gives an undertaking before the court for his appearance on
a particular date through his counsel, lookout circular issued against
the petitioner shall be withdrawn within 24 hours of giving
undertaking by the petitioner. The petitioner of this case has already
filed such undertaking.
In Sumer Singh Salkan(supra) Delhi High Court has
framed four questions which are as under :
"1. What are the categories of cases in which the
investigating agency can seek recourse of Look-out-
Circular and under what circumstances?
2. What procedure is required to be followed by the
investigating agency before opening a Look-out-
circular?
3. What is the remedy available to the person against
whom such Look-out-Circular has been opened?"
4. What is the role of the concerned Court when such
a case is brought before it and under what
circumstances, the subordinate Courts can
intervene?
Those questions were answered in the following manner :
1. Recourse to LOC can be taken by investigating
agency in cognizable offences under IPC or other
penal laws, where the accused was deliberately
evading arrest or not appearing in the trial Court
despite NBWs and other coercive measures and there
was likelihood of the accused leaving the country to
evade trial/arrest.
2. The Investigating Officer shall make a written
request for LOC to the officer as notified by the
circular of Ministry of Home Affairs, giving details &
reasons for seeking LOC. The competent officer alone
shall give directions for opening LOC by passing an
order in this respect.
3. The person against whom LOC is issued must join
investigation by appearing before I.O. or should
surrender before the Court concerned or should
satisfy the Court that LOC was wrongly issued
against him. He may also approach the officer who
ordered issuance of LOC & explain that LOC was
wrongly issued against him. LOC can be withdrawn
by the authority that issued and can also be
rescinded by the trial Court where case is pending or
having jurisdiction over concerned police station on
an application by the person concerned.
4. LOC is a coercive measure to make a person
surrender to the investigating agency or Court of
law. The subordinate Courts‟ jurisdiction in affirming
or cancelling LOC is commensurate with the
jurisdiction of cancellation of NBWs or affirming
NBWs."
23. Mr. S. Kar Bhowmik, learned senior counsel appearing for
the respondents No.1, 2 and 3 has submitted that the petitioner has
been deliberately evading arrest or not appearing in the trial court
despite issuance of non-bailable warrant and adopting other coercive
measures. Hence, the LOC as issued by Ministry of Home Affairs
against the petitioner at the request of the respondent No.3 shall not
be recalled.
24. Mr. Kar Bhowmik, learned senior counsel has referred a
Madras High Court decision in S. Sivasankaran versus Foreigner
Regional Registration Officer (FRRO) [judgment dated 29.09.2020
in W.A.No.SR 49793 of 2020] where it has been observed that LOC
can be withdrawn by the authority that issued and can also be
rescinded by the trial court where the case is pending. In the said
report, Madras High Court has opined that issuance of a lookout
circular is an exercise of authority under the office memorandum
dated 27.10.2010 and such a circular can be issued in larger public
interest. But it has been also observed that if the accused is within the
territory of India, even though he has been holding a foreign passport,
his movement would be put under surveillance on considering his
antecedent. No records have been produced by the state to
demonstrate that the petitioner has any criminal antecedent. Mere
allegation cannot form antecedent.
25. While considering the case in hand, we cannot slight the
plea of the petitioner that for corona there was a global lockdown
bringing the movement of traffic in a grinding halt. Even if, the
petitioner intended to come to India for making his appearance in the
court or before the police, that was not simply possible. Further,
against the petitioner, as of now, no warrant is pending. This fact has
not been disputed by Mr. Kar Bhowmik, learned senior counsel
appearing for the respondents No.1, 2 and 3.
26. On the strength of LOC, BOI may seize the travel
document, prevent the subject from entering India and inform the
originator or prevent the subject from leaving India and inform the
originator. Further, they can detain and handover the intercepted
person to the local police and inform the originator.
27. Having perused the memorandum dated 31.08.2010 it
has come to the forth that reasons for opening LOC have to be given
quite categorically. The reason as assigned is pending investigations in
four cases. But the police could not file the final report involving the
petitioner over such a long time. In these circumstances, in the
considered view of this court, the lookout notice circular could not
have been issued against the petitioner inasmuch as the petitioner
being a citizen of USA did not attempt to leave the territory of India in
order to evade the arrest. It appears from the nature of allegations
that it is not a case of extortion but an „attempt‟ which may not fall
within the serious crime. Moreover, the respondents No.1 and 2 did
not produce the case diary to support their case of serious fraud or
commission. Since, the petitioner has undertaken before this court to
inform the police the moment he would arrive at Agartala and
considering his status [vice-President, American Bank], the
respondents No.1, 2 and 3 are directed to withdraw the lookout notice
within 24 hours from the hour of receiving a copy of this order.
28. Allahabad High Court in G.S.C. Rao versus State of
U.P. and two Others [judgment dated 26.09.2018 delivered in
Criminal Revision No.3333 of 2018] has held that such LOCs cannot be
issued as a matter of course, but only when reasons exist where the
accused deliberately evades arrest or does not appear in the trial
court. In this circumstances, it was held in G.S.C. Rao(supra) that
condition precedent for issuance of the LOC was absent and the same
was held liable to be set aside.
29. In the present case, no warrant of arrest issued by any
court against the petitioner is pending and the petitioner is being
represented by his engaged counsel. The notice under Section 41A of
the Cr.P.C. was issued at a time when it was physically impossible for
the petitioner to travel to India for contagion (Covid-19 lockdown).
Hence, his inability to appear before the police cannot be termed as
deliberate. So far the question of impounding of the passport is
concerned, no case has been made out by the respondents No.1 and 2
in terms of Section 10(3) of the Passport Act. That apart, Passport Act
does not authorize the Indian Passport Authority to cancel US
Passport.
30. As claimed by the respondents No.1, 2 and 3, the case of
the petitioner falls under Section 10(3)(e) of the Passport Act cannot
be sustained inasmuch as the circumstance as stated in clause-(e) is
that in respect of commission of the offence inasmuch as the authority
cannot be extended unless the travel document including a passport
had been withheld by the criminal court in India or the holder of the
passport has committed any offence. The holder of the passport in this
clause should mean holder of the passport of this country. Otherwise,
there will be requirement of the order of the criminal court directing
the holder of the passport issued by a foreign country to deposit his
passport so that in some circumstances he cannot evade the process
of the court. So far the clause-10(3)(h) is concerned, this will not
apply in the case of the petitioner as there is no warrant of arrest or
summon for appearance of the petitioner is pending being issued by a
court of law.
It is apparent that the passport authority has refused to act in
accordance with the request made by the respondents No.1, 2 and 3.
31. This court cannot shut its eyes to the right of the
petitioner. The action which curtails or takes away the personnel
liberty has to be reasonable and proportionate and has to be
considered not in the abstract or hypothetical considerations.
32. Having regard to all these aspects as recorded above, the
lookout circulars as issued against the petitioner stands quashed. As
there is no contemplation of impounding of the passport by way of
overstepping the authority, it is directed that without the order of the
competent criminal court, the investigating agency shall not venture
for taking action for impounding the passport of the petitioner as
coercive measure. It is further directed that on arrival at Agartala, the
petitioner shall give information to the investigating agency and
respond to the summons issued by the criminal courts or comply the
order of the courts. It is made absolutely clear that the observations
as made above reflect in no manner on the merit of the investigation,
but the investigations should be brought to its end without delay.
In terms of the above, the writ petition stands allowed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
JUDGE
Sabyasachi B
