Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Sajad Ahmad Khan vs Union Of India And Ors on 21 December, 2024
Author: Wasim Sadiq Nargal
Bench: Wasim Sadiq Nargal
Sr. No. 27
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
Case: WP(C) No. 3010/2024
Sajad Ahmad Khan ..... Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s)
Through :- Mr. Arul Javed Kawoosa, Advocate
Vs
Union of India and Ors. .....Respondent(s)
Through :- Mr. Vishal Sharma, DSGI for R- 1 & 4
Mrs. Monika Kohli, Advocate for R- 2 & 3
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE WASIM SADIQ NARGAL, JUDGE
ORDER
21.12.2024
01. Through the medium of instant petition, the petitioner is seeking
quashment of order dated 11.09.2024 passed by the Court of learned Special
Judge Anti-Corruption CBI cases, Jammu to the extent that the learned trial
Court has refused to release the passport of the petitioner/grant NOC in favour
of the petitioner, with a further direction to the respondents to release the
original passport of the petitioner bearing No. N2274313 in view of the urgency
involved in the petition, as the petitioner intends to go for Hajj Pilgrimage 2025.
In addition, the petitioner has also sought a direction against the Court of
learned Special Judge Anti Corruption CBI cases, Jammu to issue NOC in
favour of the petitioner for issuance/renewal of passport in terms of law by
directing the concerned Passport Authority i.e. respondent no. 4 to issue
2|Page WP(C) No. 3010/2024
passport in favour of the petitioner with the alternate relief as prayed for, in the
instant petition.
02. It has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no
criminal proceedings as of now are pending against the petitioner, however, an
FIR was registered by respondent no. 1 bearing No. RC6(s) 2018/CBI/SCB/CH
(RCCHG0512018S0) and the petitioner was not named as an accused in the said
FIR. However, the petitioner came to know about the said FIR only in the year
2021 when respondent no. 1 pursuant to some investigation pertaining to the
issuance of arms license issued by the Deputy Commissioners of the UT of
J&K, conducted search of the residence of the petitioner and vide seizure memo
dated 12.10.2021, seized the original passport issued in favour of the petitioner
bearing No. N2274313 issued on 17.08.2015. The respondents also seized one
mobile phone Model Galaxy bearing IMEI No. 358674084138163 and IMEI
No. 358674084138160 Mobile No. 8899895396 and the original gift deed
executed between Mr. Ghulam Nabi Mir (father-in-law of the petitioner) and
Mst. Shamima (wife of the petitioner), pertaining to the residential house of the
family of the petitioner, by virtue of which the father-in-law of the petitioner has
gifted land along with the house existing thereon in favour of the wife of the
petitioner, which gift was made some 25 years ago and even the father-in-law of
the petitioner has also expired in the year 2001.
03. The further case of the petitioner is that he received a communication
dated 03.02.2023 from respondent no. 4 whereby the petitioner was informed
that the passport bearing No. N2274313 dated 17.08.2015 has been impounded
3|Page WP(C) No. 3010/2024
under Section 10(3) of the Passports Act, 1967 for the reason, “Security Threat
to India.”
04. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the passport has been
impounded in absence of any response from the petitioner and the petitioner was
thereafter informed by the passport authority that he can apply for fresh passport
in case, the petitioner so desire and e-mail in this regard was sent to the
petitioner on 03.02.2023. The further case of the petitioner is that the petitioner
applied for issuance of a fresh passport on 27.04.2024 and till date, the fresh
passport has not been processed/released in favour of the petitioner.
05. Feeling aggrieved of the same, the petitioner approached the Court of
learned Special Judge Anti Corruption CBI cases, Jammu by filling a
application for release of the original passport of the petitioner bearing No.
N2274313, in view of the urgency involved, as the petitioner intends to go for
Haj pilgrimage besides seeking release of his mobile phone and other items,
which were seized by the CBI.
06. The learned Special Judge Anti Corruption CBI cases, Jammu disposed
of the said application vide order dated 11.09.2024, which is impugned in the
present petition by virtue of which, the Court has been pleased to observe as
under:-
“Having heard so, it is directed that let seized
articles/documents aforementioned be released in
favour of the applicant under rules but impugned
passport at this stage cannot be released as there is
every apprehension that applicant/accused may give
slip to law and flee from course of justice thereby
jeopardizing the broader interests of the case. With
4|Page WP(C) No. 3010/2024these observations the present application is disposed
of, consigned to records, however, the applicant is not
debarred from moving fresh application if there is a
change in circumstances.”
07. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the Court
of learned Special Judge Anti Corruption CBI cases, Jammu without due
application of mind and unmindful of the fact that till date, challan has not been
presented against the petitioner has passed the order impugned without assigning
any reason and has refused to release the passport without any cogent reasons.
08. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has
a right to hold a passport in terms of the mandate of Article 21 of the
Constitution of India and the delay in issuing the same is not in conformity with
the Constitutional mandate and the provisions of the Passport Act and the delay
occasioned in releasing and issuing the passport has an effect of imposing
restrictions on the Constitutional rights of the petitioner, which guarantees him
freedom to travel abroad as well.
09. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length and perused the record.
10. Issue notice, which is waived by Mr. Vishal Sharma, learned DSGI for
respondent nos. 1 & 4 and Mrs. Monika Kohli, Advocate for respondent nos. 2
and 3.
11. Keeping in view the urgency expressed, this Court deems it proper to
direct the learned counsel for the respondents to file response within a period of
10 days, positively and learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 3 is further
directed to provide the relevant record/material in a sealed cover, which weighed
5|Page WP(C) No. 3010/2024
with the authorities to impound the passport of the petitioner and also to apprise
this Court the legal impediment coming in the way of the passport authorities in
granting the passport afresh.
12. List on 02.01.2025.
(WASIM SADIQ NARGAL)
JUDGE
JAMMU
21.12.2024
Mihul
Mihul Singh
2024.12.24 10:40
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document