DENZILO SAVIO RODRICKS Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As per the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, petitioner claims to be a citizen of USA. His wife lodged complaint and based on which Cr.No.134 of 2015 was registered for the offence punishable under Sec. 498-A and the police, after investigation, filed charge sheet in C.C.No.467 of 2015 on the file of XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad. During the process of investigation, the passport of the petitioner was seized by the police and deposited in the court. Seeking release of his passport, petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.399 of 2018 in C.C.No.467 of 2015. By order dtd. 22/2/2018, the trial court dismiss the petition. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner filed revision in Crl.R.P.No.69 of 2018 on the file of I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, at Hyderabad. By order dtd. 27/4/2018, the lower appellate court dismissed the revision. Hence the present writ petition.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a permanent resident of USA and is employed there. He came to India to drop his mother and because of the seizure of his passport, he is unable to go to USA and join duty. He states that there are no orders from the court for seizure of his passport, but the police have seized and deposited in court. He submits that the petitioner has been granted bail and as the trial will take considerable time, his passport may be directed to be released and that the petitioner undertakes to attend the court as and when required and to abide by any other condition to be imposed by the court. Learned counsel also relied on the judgment in GIAN SINGH v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN, LAWS (SC) 1999 5 101, wherein in similar facts and circumstances, the Apex Court ordered for release of passport of the appellant therein, on executing a bond for a sum of Rs.3,00,000.00 with two solvent sureties to the satisfaction of the court. Learned counsel sought to pass similar order.

(3.) On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submits that both the courts below have categorically found that if the passport is released, it would be difficult for the prosecuting agency to secure his presence for the purpose of trial. He further stated that the trial court passed interlocutory orders and as per Sec. 397(2) of Cr.P.C., revision against interlocutory proceedings, is not maintainable. However, petitioner filed revision before the lower appellate court and the same was entertained and dismissed; now again he filed the present writ petition in the form of second revision and hence the same is not maintainable. Therefore, he sought to dismiss the revision.