WILLIAM SCOTT PINCKNEY Vs. STATE OF A.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the second accused in Crime No.311 of 2013 of Kurnool II -town P.S.

(2.) THE petitioner was granted regular bail by order of the learned Sessions Judge under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crl.M.P. No.1043 of 2014 in Crime No.311 of Kurnool II Town P.S. The petitioner was enlarged on regular bail by order dated 12.6.2014 in Crl.M.P. No.1043 of 2014. Crime is registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 385 read with 120 -B of I.P.C. and under Sections 3 to 6 read with Section 2(c) of Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978. Needless to say against the petitioner -accused, there are more than 10 crimes pending within two States and the investigation by virtue of direction of this Court in W.P. No.15493 of 2014, dated 10.6.2014 is entrusted to Additional Director General of Police, CID, Hyderabad. Coming back to the bail order of the learned Sessions Judge, dated 12.6.2014 at paragraph -10 conditions imposed include execution of self -bold for Rs.1 lakh with two sureties for a likesum each to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurnool, appearing before the Investigating Officer i.e., Deputy Superintendent of Police, RO, CID, Kurnool named therein every second Saturday between 10.00 a.m. and 12.00 noon until further orders and to surrender his two original passports of United States of America and Australia respectively, before the investigation officers supra within two weeks of the said order granting bail subject to acknowledgement and not to make any inducement or threat to the witnesses acquainted with the facts so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court.

(3.) IT was not laid down as the principle but for the same to be taken as principle from the argument of the learned counsel. In fact, scope of Section 6 much less Section 10 or 10A or 10B of the Passports Act, 1967 not referred therein. Coming to the other decision in SURESH NANDA'S case (2 supra) what was laid down by the Apex Court is even a CBI official securing and retaining passport with him is nothing but confiscation without sanction of law much less by any statutory provision and the same was illegal. That proposition has no application to the present facts more particularly, it is an order of the learned Sessions Judge. In fact, the Apex Court in the Constitutional Bench Judgment in GURUBAKSH SINGH SIBBIA v. STATE OF PUNJAB [(1980) 2 SCC 565] and referring said expression by the Apex Court later in SIDDHARAM SATLINGAPPA MHETRE v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [AIR 2011 SC 312], it was vividly explained what are the conditions to be laid down in granting bail which include impounding of passport by order of the Court and furnishing of the property particulars, seizure of title deeds, seizure of bank account. Needless to say attending the police station and there are nine guidelines laid down by the Constitutional Bench of the Apex Court in SIDDHARAM SATLINGAPPA MHETRE 'S case (4 supra) which include guideline as to given police custody where anticipatory bail is sought. These are only illustrative and not exhaustive that are required to be applied depending on the facts of the case. No doubt, thereby the impugned order of the learned Sessions Judge in directing to surrender the passport is no way statutorily illegal much less as per the settled propositions of the Apex Court supra. In fact as per Section 6 (2) (f) of the Passports Act, there is a provision that where the person is accused of crime in India passport can be refused or a travel permit even can be refused. After the said provision noticed as causing difficulty for several of the persons from the accusation facing, guidelines issued. Needless to say, so far as public servants in discharge of their official duties is concerned, if crime is pending against them, the superior officers can permit to leave the country and from the no objection and certification of the superiors, passport authority can issue passport or to give travel permit vide G.S.R. 34 (E), dated 12.01.2000. So far as the other persons are concerned, the Ministry of External Affairs in GSR 570E, dated 25.8.1993 as per Section 22 of the Passports Act observed that in the public interest by virtue of this notification exempting citizens of India against whom proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed pending before the Criminal Court in India, who produce orders from the Court concerned permitting them to depart from India from the operation of the provisions of Section 6 (2) (f) of the Passports Act, the passport can be permitted or travel permit as the case may be.