W.P.(C)/7927/2017 of SH. MYHAN LAL SEHJPAL Vs STATE (THROUGH C.B.I)

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+W.P.(C) 7927/2017

SH. MOHAN LAL SEHJPAL

..... Petitioner

Through Amit Saxena, Advocate with Mr HardayPratap Singh, Advocate.

versus

STATE (THROUGH C.B.I)Through

..... Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRUO R R%08.09.2017

1.The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, praying asunder:-

“a) writ or writs in the nature of mandamus or in the natureof certiorari or any other appropriate writs directing therespondent to release the Original Passport of the petitionerbearing No. Z-2301226 forcibly and illegally taken byrespondenton27.08.2017w.r.t.caseno.RC.BD1/2014/E/2004 P.S: CBI/BS&FC/New Delhi underSection 120-B r/w 409, 411/420/467/468/471/474 IPC inwhich the petitioner has no role;

b) Exemplary costs be imposed upon the respondent tocompensate the petitioner for the harassment and unduehardships undergone by the petitioner and the losses sufferedby him due to the said illegal act of the respondent;

c) Any other order or direction which this Hon’ble Court maydeem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the casemay also be passed in favour of the petitioner and against the

2.The petitioner was summoned by the Investigating Officer, CBI (I.O.)for investigation/inquiry in case bearing No. RC.BD1/2014/E/2004P.S:CBI/BS&FC/New Delhi under Section 120-B r/w 409/411/420/467/468/471 IPC. During the course of the investigation the IO directed thepetitioner to surrender his passport and accordingly, on 03.03.2014 thepetitioner handed over his original passport (bearing No. Z-2301226 to himby Production-cum-Seizure Memo dated 03.03.2014.

3.The CBI finally filed charge sheet in the case titled “State (CBI) v.Nirmal Singh Bhangoo & Ors.” on 07.04.2016 and, concededly, thepetitioner is not arrayed as an accused in that case. The petitioner requestedfor release of his passport but was informed to approach the concernedCourt for the same in August, 2016.

4.The petitioner states that he was required to visit his son - who is inAustralia - as he was taken unwell. Therefore, the petitioner filed anapplication for release of his passport in the Court of Ms Charu Aggarwal,CMM (West), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. In response to the said application,the Court was informed that the petitioner’s passport had been depositedwith the Regional Passport Officer, Chandigarh (RPO) and the petitionershould approach the said office for release of his passport.

5.In view of the above, the petitioner approached the RPO Chandigarh;who also declined to release the petitioner's passport. This led the petitionerto file writ petition [No. W.P. (C) 4373/2017] in this Court for release of

his passport. The said petition was disposed of by an order dated19.05.2017, whereby this Court directed the PRO to either initiateappropriate action for cancelling the passport or release the same to thepetitioner.

6.Thereafter, the PRO released the passport to the petitioner and thepetitioner made his arrangement to travel to Australia on 27.08.2017.

7.After the petitioner and his wife obtained the boarding pass to boardthe flight, his passport was once again taken from him. The petitioneralleges that his passport was seized by the CBI, however this is disputed andthe learned counsel for the respondent, who states that the passport wasseized by the immigration authorities. On further enquiry from the learnedcounsel for the CBI, he states, on instructions, that the passport was seizedby the Immigration Officials as the Look Out Circular (LOC) issued againstthe petitioner had, inadvertently, not been cancelled/withdrawn.

8.Inspector Anit Rawat, the IO is present in Court and he states that thepassport could not be returned to the petitioner as he was on medical leave.However, the petitioner was called to collect his passport from the office ofCBI on 07.09.2017 but he has not collected the passport as yet.

9.It is seen from the above that the petitioner has been deprived of hispassport since 2014. The right to free movement is integral facet of thefundamental rights of citizen and depriving citizen of passport curtailssuch right ( see : Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248)Thus, the action of seizing or causing passport to be seized must beinitiated with certain amount of circumspection and only when such action is

necessary. This Court is unable to appreciate the callous manner in whichthe same has been done in this case. Whilst the CBI had issued the Look OutCircular, the necessary steps for cancellation of the same were notadmittedly taken.

10.In view of the above, the petition is allowed. The respondent, the CBI,is directed to release the passport to the petitioner forthwith. Considering themanner in which the petitioner has been prevented from leaving this countrythis Court is of the view that award of costs is warranted and directs therespondent to pay cost of ₹10,000/- to the petitioner.

11.The petition is disposed of.

SEPTEMBER 08, 2017pkv

VIBHU BAKHRU, J