JAI NARAYAN PRASAD SINHA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An interlocutory application bearing no.2045 of 2016 has been filed at the instance of the appellant with prayer to implead the Regional Passport Officer, Ranchi in the instant appeal as party respondent no.2 and after impleading direct the said authority to issue passport in favour of the present appellant which has been 'on hold' by the said authority with remarks 'court direction for issuance of passport as court case is pending'.

(2.) Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as learned counsel, Mr. Deo appearing for the C.B.I.

(3.) Learned counsel, Mr. Rajendra Krishna appearing for the appellant submitted that the appellant has been convicted under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs.1000/ - and also convicted under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years with fine of Rs.5000/ - with default clause whereafter he was granted provisional bail by the court below and subsequently on filing this appeal after admission of appeal, the privilege of bail granted to the appellant was made absolute. It was also submitted that during pendency of this appeal, the appellant filed the instant interlocutory application on the ground that his younger son Parimal Kumar is residing in Brooklyn, New York alongwith his wife Ruma Kumari and the said daughter -in -law, Ruma Kumari is on family way and is expecting a twin and the expected date of delivery is 28.08.2016 but as her pregnancy is through IVF pregnancy mode, she needs more precautions than the normal delivery and she has been advised by the doctor attending her in USA to go for complete bed rest for three months before delivery. Learned counsel further submitted that since there is no other family member in USA alongwith his younger son and daughter -in -law, she requested the appellant and his wife i.e. the mother -in -law, to join her in New York and stay with them for at least six month during the period of her pregnancy. In support of his contention, learned counsel has enclosed medical certificate granted by the treating doctor as Annexure -1/1 and 1/2. Learned counsel further submitted that after receiving the said request letter of daughter -in -law since he had no passport, he applied before the passport authority for grant of passport to visit USA but the same has been kept 'on hold' with remarks 'court direction for issuance of passport as court case is pending'. Whereafter, the instant application has been filed with prayer to direct the passport authority to issue the passport. Learned counsel further submitted that under Sub section 2 (e) of Section 6 of Passport Act, the power has been given to the passport authority to refuse to make an endorsement for visiting any foreign country if the person who has applied for grant of passport, has been convicted by a court in India for not less than two years for any offence involving moral turpitude at any time during the period of five years and in the light of the aforesaid provision the passport authority has kept the passport of the appellant on hold. The appellant is ready to furnish any undertaking and assures that he will not abscond and come back to India and inform the court of his presence in India. Learned counsel by filing details of his son Vimal Kumar, who is working as Deputy Director, Central Water Commission, New Delhi, submitted that the said son of appellant is also ready to file an undertaking that the appellant will not misuse the privilege of the permission to go to USA. Learned counsel has also enclosed an affidavit filed by the daughter - in -law, Ruma Kumari sworn before Notary Public, State of New York which is enclosed as Annexure -6 with supplementary affidavit in this interlocutory application.