Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2021 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (9) TMI 1385 - KERALA HIGH COURTApplication for issuance of a passport - It was alleged in the crime that petitioner had impersonated the defacto complainant and travelled with the defacto complainant's passport from Sharjah, after taking possession of the passport of the complainant by committing a breach of trust - HELD THAT:- It is indubitable that the right to travel beyond the frontiers of our country is a facet of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India - However comprehensive the said liberty be, it is still subject to 'procedure established by law'. Thus after the enactment of the Act in 1967, a law came into existence which enabled denial merely on the ground of existence of a criminal proceeding. Another facet of Article 21 that encapsulates every law, laying down a procedure to deprive the personal liberty of a person is the triplet of 'just, fair and reasonable'. Thus to make the deprivation of the personal liberty of the right to travel abroad, just, fair and reasonable, the Government of India in exercise of the powers under section 22 of the Act, issued a notification, which is statutory in character, exempting citizens of India against whom criminal proceedings are pending before a criminal court from the operation of section 6(2)(f) of the Act on condition that the applicant produces orders from the Court concerned permitting to depart from India. The courts have been constantly holding that the pendency of a criminal proceeding is not a bar for obtaining a passport or for travelling abroad. However, the only requirement in such cases is that the court where the criminal proceeding is pending, must grant permission for the period of such travel or the period for which the passport can be issued . Based upon such permission, the passport issuing authority can issue the requisite document enabling travel. While granting permission, the criminal courts will do well to bear in mind that the ultimate aim of granting permission is to balance the competing claims of fundamental right to travel abroad and the need to ensure the presence of the accused during trial. Other reasonable safeguards to ensure the presence of the accused during trial can also be incorporated into the order granting permission, if the circumstances warrant it - Petition disposed off.
|