Patna High Court – Orders
Craig Allen Moore @ Crag Allen Moore vs The State Of Bihar Through Its … on 25 March, 2025
Author: Chandra Shekhar Jha
Bench: Chandra Shekhar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.460 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-323 Year-2024 Thana- JAYNAGAR District- Madhubani
======================================================
1. Craig Allen Moore @ Crag Allen Moore, Son of Michael J Moore, Resident
of 24051 Sherwood Road Willits California - 95490, Passport No.
A07196056
2. Munni Sah, Wife of Craig Allen Moore @ Crag Allen Moore, Resident of
18170 Mandarin Street Woodland California 95695, Passport No.
669732407
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through its Additional Chief Secretary, Home
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department, Government of Bihar,
Patna.
3. The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs,
Bureau of Immigration Office of Assistant Foreigner's Regional Registration
Officer.
4. Foreigners Regional Registration Office, Bureau of Immigration 237,
Acharya Jagdish Chandra Bose Rd Ballygunge, Kolkata, West Bengal
700020.
5. The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna.
6. The District Magistrate, Madhubani.
7. The Superintendent of Police, Madhubani.
8. The Officer-In-Charge, Jaynagar Police Station, Madhubani.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioners : Ms. Shrishti Singh, Advocate
Mr. Pranav Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent-State: Mr. Ramadhar Singh, G.P.-25
For the Respondent-U.O.I.: Mr. Rana Vikram Singh, Advocate (Deputy.
Solicitor General of India).
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
4 25-03-2025
Heard Ms. Shrishti Singh, learned counsel for the
petitioners, Mr. Ramadhar Singh, learned G.P.-23 and Mr.
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.460 of 2025(4) dt.25-03-2025
2/19
Rana Vikram Singh, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India
appearing on behalf of Union of India.
2. The present application has been filed by the
petitioner for the following relief(s):-
(i) To issue an appropriate writ/order/direction in
the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to
issue an exit permit to the petitioners pursuant to their
applications dated 02.12.2024.
(ii) To any other relief or reliefs for which the
petitioners are found to be entitled in the facts and
circumstances of the case.
3. The case of prosecution in brief is based on the
written report of the informant, namely, Jayendra Singh,
currently posted as A.S.I./Party Commander, 48 th Battalion
SSB. At about 10:00 A.M. on 09.11.2024, it was informed
that some foreign citizens in a white car, bearing Registration
No.BR01PM6836, are going from India towards Nepal. On
checking of aforesaid car at check post by informant, two
foreign citizens were found sitting inside car along with two
Indians. One of the persons introduced himself as Sonu
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.460 of 2025(4) dt.25-03-2025
3/19
Kumar Gupta, son of Ashok Kumar Gupta, who introduced
foreigners sitting in the car as his relatives. The other three
persons sitting in the car were identified/introduced as – Crag
Allen Moore (petitioner no.1), Munni Sah (petitioner no.2)
and Ram Hriday Singh. On enquiry, the foreign citizens told
that on 04.11.2024, they had come from Nepal to Jaynagar
with their relative Sonu Kumar Gupta and after staying in
Jaynagar for four days, they are now returning to Nepal on
09.11.2024 through car. They also stated that they have
valid passport, visa for Nepal and also e-tourist visa for
entering in India. It is also alleged that on enquiry, it was
found that the passport did not contain any Indian emigration
stamp, which indicates that they were staying in the country
illegally. Thereafter, the car, passports bearing No.
A07196056 (petitioner no.1) and 669732407 (petitioner
no.2) were seized and the seizure list was prepared
accordingly.
4. On the basis of aforesaid written information,
the police registered Jaynagar P.S. Case No.323 of 2024 for
the offences punishable under Sections 14(b) and 14-C of the
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.460 of 2025(4) dt.25-03-2025
4/19
Foreigners Act, 1946 and Section 12(3) of the Passports Act,
1967.
5. Pursuant to the registration of FIR, the Charge
Sheet No. 613 of 2024 dated 30.11.2024 has been filed
under Sections 14(b) & 14-C of the Foreigners Act, 1946 and
Section 12(3) of the Passports Act, 1967 against the
petitioners.
6. Petitioners were granted bail on 18.11.2024 by
the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madhubani, where the
submission was advanced by learned counsel appearing for
prosecution that no evidence or involvement of the petitioners
in any illegal activities has been surfaced during the course of
investigation. The only allegation against the petitioners is
that at the time of entering into the Indian Territory, Indian
emigration stamp was missing on their passport and in view of
same, the petitioners were directed to be released on bail,
with no condition that they cannot leave the country without
the permission of the court or during the pendency of the
trial.
7. Subsequently, the petitioners had filed an
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.460 of 2025(4) dt.25-03-2025
5/19
application for release of their passports and vide order dated
26.11.2024, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madhubani
has directed to release seized passports for which, no
objection was raised against said order by the prosecution.
8. Thereafter, the learned SDJM, Kishanganj took
cognizance of the charge sheet on 16.12.2024 under Sections
14(b) & 14-C of the Foreigners Act, 1946, and Section 12(3)
of the Passports Act, 1967. Pursuant to the order rejecting
discharge of the petitioner, an order framing charge dated
02.01.2025 was passed by the court of learned Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate-1, Madhubani under Sections 14(b)
& 14-C of the Foreigners Act, 1946, and Section 12(3) of the
Passports Act, 1967.
9. The following moot questions of law, which are
involved in the present writ application:-
(a) Whether in the facts and
circumstances of the case, the inaction
of the respondents in not granting the
exit permit is violative of Article 21 of
the Constitution of India?
(b) Whether in the facts and
circumstances of the case, the inaction
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.460 of 2025(4) dt.25-03-2025
6/19of the respondents in not granting the
exit permit when no such condition has
been imposed in the bail order is illegal
and without basis?
(c) Whether in the facts and
circumstances of the case, the inaction
of the respondents in not granting the
exit permit when no such condition has
been imposed in the passport release
order is illegal and without basis?
10. Ms. Shrishti Singh, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are
citizens of the United States of America and FIR has been
registered against them within the territorial jurisdiction of
this Court. It is further submitted that petitioner no. 1,
namely, Craig Allen Moore is 65 years old and was operated
for locoregional oesophageal / esophageal cancer on
30.11.2023. He is currently at risk of recurrence, which
requires intensive and regular medical surveillance with scans,
labs and clinic follow up. He is being treated at UCSF Helen
Diller Comprehensive Cancer Center, San Francisco and to
that extent, the doctor of the oncology department has issued
a certificate dated 18.02.2025.
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.460 of 2025(4) dt.25-03-2025
7/19
11. It is further submitted that the petitioner no. 2,
namely, Munni Sah is the wife of petitioner no. 1. Both the
petitioners are citizens of United States of America holding
passports bearing no. A07196056 & 669732407. Both the
petitioners are upright citizens of the United States of
America having no criminal antecedent, whereas petitioner
no. 1 is in the business of tile work and petitioner no. 2 works
as Personal Assistant with an institute called “Vvabi-Sabi”
that assists intellectually disabled persons. Petitioner no. 2 is
directly responsible for the well-being of such persons, who
are suffering in her absence, as evident from a letter dated
02.02.2025, issued by Vvabi-Sabi.
12. In the background of aforesaid facts, it is
submitted that the petitioner no. 1 suffers from cancer, which
requires a conducive environment and regular specific
monitoring and surveillance, under the team of doctors, who
had operated upon him on 30.11.2023, and under whose
care, the petitioner no. 1 has been since the inception of his
diagnosis. The petitioner no. 2, who is the wife of petitioner
no. 1 was born in Nepal and also has relatives in India. The
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.460 of 2025(4) dt.25-03-2025
8/19
petitioners left from San Francisco, USA on 28.10.2024 and
had arrived in Nepal on 29.10.2024, where they were visiting
family. Due to the cancer diagnosis of the petitioner no. 1, the
petitioners decided to travel to India during the holy festival
of Chhath as to offer their pooja/prayer. The petitioners had
obtained the visas, which were the electronic travel
authorisation (in short ‘ETA’). The petitioners were issued
their respective visas on 24.10,2024, which was valid till
23.10.2029. Accordingly, they entered India through
Betaunha Border out post on 04.11.2024, where their
passports and e-visas were examined, and they were allowed
to enter the country. After the Chhath Puja, on 09.11.2024,
when the petitioners were returning through the same out
post, they were detained, and objections were raised with
regard to their documentation.
13. It is further submitted that on perusal of the
entire prosecution story and subsequent proceedings, it would
indicate that there is no violation of the provisions under
which the petitioners have been charged that acting in
violation of the visa granted.
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.460 of 2025(4) dt.25-03-2025
9/19
14. While arguing further, it is submitted that in the
bail order dated 18.11.2024, the prosecution has admitted
that the petitioners have not found to be indulged in any
illegal activity. In fact, as recorded in the passport release
order dated 26.11.2024, the prosecution has not opposed the
said release. The only and limited grievance against the
petitioners is that though they had a visa, it was not stamped
by the Indian immigration.
15. It is further submitted that though the
petitioners was on bail since 18.11.2024 and their passports
were released on 26.11.2024, they have continued to uphold
the rule of law and the stayed within the territorial jurisdiction
of this Court.
16. Arguing further, it is submitted that the
petitioners have made applications dated 02.12.2024 before
the Bureau of Immigration, FRRO for exit permit. However,
till date, they had not been granted the same despite of
repeated requests and reminders. It is further submitted that
the petitioners are being prejudicially and irreversibly affected
by non-granting of exit permit under given precarious health
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.460 of 2025(4) dt.25-03-2025
10/19
condition of petitioner no. 1. Due to non-grant of exit permit,
the petitioner no. 1 has missed his check-ups and crucial
scans, which poses an immediate threat to his life.
17. It is further submitted by learned counsel that
while granting the bail, the court below has not imposed any
condition on the petitioners that they cannot travel outside
the country even while releasing the passports, no such
condition was imposed. Therefore, mere pendency of the
criminal prosecution may not come in the way of granting the
exit permit to the petitioners.
18. In the aforesaid background, it is submitted
that it is a fit case for interference by this Court for protecting
the life and liberty of the petitioners under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India by granting the exit permit to the
petitioner.
19. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of
Respondent Nos. 3 and 4, which is kept on record.
20. Mr. Rana Vikram Singh, learned counsel
appearing for Union of India-Ministry of External Affairs
submitted that the petitioners are citizens of United States of
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.460 of 2025(4) dt.25-03-2025
11/19
America and upon thorough inquiry, it was found that the
passports of the petitioners did not contain the requisite
immigration stamp, which is mandated by rules, regulations
and guidelines promulgated from time to time by the Central
Government for regulation of entry and exit of foreign
nationals within the territory of this country.
21. Mr. Singh further submitted that as per Rule
3(a) of the Passport (Entry into India), Rules, 1950, no
person proceedings from any place outside India shall enter
India by water, land or air unless he is in possession of a valid
passport. It is further submitted that Rule 5(iv) of Rules,
1950 clearly lays down that passports issued by Government
of foreign country shall have proper endorsement. However, it
is prima facie evident from the FIR that passport of
petitioners were not properly endorsed, which points to the
fact that they resided illegally in this country.
22. It is further submitted that section 3 of The
Foreigners Act, 1946 empowers the Central Government to
make provisions either generally or with respect to all
foreigners or with respect to any particular foreigner or any
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.460 of 2025(4) dt.25-03-2025
12/19
prescribed class or description of foreigner, for prohibiting,
regulating or restricting the entry of foreigner into India or
their departure therefrom or their presence or continued
presence therein. In light of the same, the Central
Government promulgated various guidelines for entry and exit
of foreigners.
23. While arguing further, it is submitted that in
terms of the power vested under section 3 of the Act, 1946,
the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India vide
Notification dated 16.09.2014 has issued express guideline
that if a foreign national has a pending court case, then they
must obtain permission from the competent court before
being allowed to leave the country.
24. Mr. Singh further submitted that since the
petitioners are accused in the present FIR, therefore, they are
required to procure order/permission of the competent court
in order to leave the country as stipulated by Notification no.
Affairs promulgated by Ministry of Home.
25. It is further submitted by Mr. Singh that the
petitioners are foreign nationals and in case they are
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.460 of 2025(4) dt.25-03-2025
13/19
permitted to leave the country, then it would be very difficult
to ensure their presence. Hence, the exit permits must be
issued to petitioners only after issuance of order/permission
by the competent court.
26. While concluding argument, it is submitted that
if the petitioners are allowed to leave the country, then trial
will be stalled. So, in this backdrop, necessary directions in
the form of stipulations may be issued for securing their
presence before the learned trial court for smooth conduction
of trial, as the charges have already been framed by the
learned trial court. It is further submitted that petitioner no.1
may have health conditions and issues and for that he has all
the sympathises. However, the allegations are serious in
nature in as much as the petitioners have been alleged to
reside in India without a valid visa. Moreover, such incidents
poses great risk to the security, integrity, peace and
tranquility of the country.
27. Mr. Singh submitted that in view of aforesaid
facts and circumstances, this case is fit to be dismissed as it is
not maintainable with a direction to the petitioners to
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.460 of 2025(4) dt.25-03-2025
14/19
approach the competent court of law for procuring
order/permission for departure.
28. Considering the argument as canvassed by
learned counsel appearing for the parties and a perusal of
record, it appears that the cause to file the present writ
petition is refusal of exit permit by Bureau of Immigration,
FRRO (Respondent No.4) to the petitioners on the ground
that the criminal case (Jaynagar P.S. Case No.323 of 2024) is
pending against them and without the order of court, exit
permit can not be proceed.
29. It is an admitted position out of submission that
there is no any condition imposed while granting bail to the
petitioners by learned trial court that they cannot leave the
country without permission of the trial court, even the
passport of the petitioners were released in their favour. The
petitioners were said to be the holder of valid visa and as it
was lacking of stamp of immigration, they were detained by
the police while returning from India to Nepal. Petitioners not
appears to be involved in criminal activities during their stay
in India.
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.460 of 2025(4) dt.25-03-2025
15/19
30. It would be apposite to reproduce Para-20 of
the legal report of Hon’ble Supreme Court as available
through Parvez Noordin Lokhandwalla vs. State of
Maharashtra and Anr. [(2020) 10 SCC 77], which is as
under:-
“20. This Court has passed multiple orders
previously allowing an accused enlarged on bail to
travel abroad. In Ganpati Ramnath v. State of Bihar,
2017 SCC OnLine SC 1998 , this Court allowed an
accused applicant to travel abroad for medical
treatment, modifying its earlier bail order, noting that
the applicant had travelled abroad on the ground of
medical necessity on six occasions with the
permission of the court and had returned. In K.
Mohammed v. State of Kerala, 2020 SCC OnLine SC
860, this Court allowed the appellant-accused to
travel abroad to meet in the exigencies of a family
situation. In Tarun Trikha v. State of W.B., 2015
SCC OnLine SC 1879, this Court allowed the
petitioner-accused to travel to Indonesia in
connection with his employment and to return once
the work was completed. In Pitam Pradhan v. State
of A.P., 2014 SCC OnLine SC 1795, this Court while
granting anticipatory bail, permitted the petitioner to
travel abroad noting that his job required him to
travel abroad at frequent intervals and may lose his
employment if he were not permitted to travel
abroad”.
31. It would further be apposite to reproduce the
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.460 of 2025(4) dt.25-03-2025
16/19
letter of Consulate General of the United States of America,
Kolkata, India, which is as under:-
“TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
Dear Sir/Madam,
This is to informant you that Mr. Craig Allen Moore
and Ms. Munni Sah are both U.S. Citizens, who have
been awaiting trial since November 9, 2024, in
Bihar, India.
Mr. Craig Allen Moore is 64 years old and was
recently treated for locoregional oesophageal
cancer. Per his doctor, Geoffery Buckle, at the
Hellen Diller Comprehensive Cancer Center, he
remains at risk of reoccurence and requires further
surveillance with scans, labs and clinic follow ups.
His presence in the United States is required for
these clinical follow ups.
The U.S. Consulate is not aware of a
criminal records for Mr. Craig Allen Moore and Ms.
Munni Sah
Sincerely,
Karl Mercer
Consul”
32. Learned counsel appearing for petitioners
submitted that the petitioners are ready to furnish the
adequate sureties and they maximum needs for 4 months i.e.
16 weeks for his check up and treatment of 3 rd grade cancer
for which the petitioner no.1 was operated at UCSF, Helen
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.460 of 2025(4) dt.25-03-2025
17/19
Diller Comprehensive Cancer Center, San Francisco, U.S.A.,
as discussed above.
33. Considering the aforesaid fact, this Court
permit the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 to travel U.S.A. (petitioner
No.2 is the wife of petitioner No.1) subject to furnishing their
undertaking before the trial court that they will return to India
after expiry of 16 weeks and, thereafter, they will remain
present on each and every date of hearing before the court
concerned/trial court unless specifically exempted from their
personal appearance with further conditions:
(i) That the adequate securities of Rs.
25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs) by
each of the petitioners be furnished before the
learned trial court, subject to its satisfaction and
if petitioners failed to return within the stipulated
time period without any further order of this
Court, the trial court may proceed to recover the
amount of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs)
in the manner of recovery of land revenue from
concerned sureties.
(ii) That both aforesaid sureties must
be Indian and of local jurisdiction of the court
i.e. District-Madhubani, Bihar, India.
(iii) That both petitioners must supply
their e-mail ID, mobile no., residential proof of
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.460 of 2025(4) dt.25-03-2025
18/19
U.S.A. and other necessary requirement through
their undertaking before trial court, as to join
the trial through virtual mode, as and when
required.
(iv) As the Sub-ordinate courts of this
State still working in hybrid mode, if it is
permitted by the doctor at U.S.A., the petitioner
nos.1 and 2 may join the court proceedings, in
between, through virtual mode i.e. within
aforesaid four months, so that trial may also
proceed further.
(iv) Both the petitioners must
report before the trial court on or before 29 th
July, 2025.
34. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to
Mr. Karl Mercer, Consul, who is the author of “Annexure-P-
13A” as to inform its counter part at U.S.A. and also the
Indian embassy at U.S.A. as to remain vigilant qua petitioners
during their stay at U.S.A. During stay period, petitioners
must report Indian embassy fortnightly.
35. Copy of aforesaid undertaking and sureties be
furnished by petitioners before Foreigner’s Regional
Registration Office, Bureau of Immigration, Kolkata, West
Bengal (Respondent No.4), while processing the exit permit of
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.460 of 2025(4) dt.25-03-2025
19/19
petitioners in furtherance of this court order.
36. Let copy of this order be sent to learned trial
court and all the respondents, immediately.
37. Considering the factual aspect qua health
condition of petitioner No.1, Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are
directed to process ‘exit permit’ of petitioners at its earliest,
subject to compliance of “Para-35”, as above.
38. Learned counsel for the petitioners is directed
to furnish health status of petitioner no.1 on affidavit after
four weeks.
39. Re-notify this matter on 08.05.2025, position
be retained.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.)
Sanjeet/-
U T
[ad_1]
Source link