The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ordered the release of a man’s passport, which is pending with a lower court dealing with an FIR of cruelty lodged by his wife.
Justice Harpreet Singh Brar said that withholding the passport would “have a really detrimental effect” with regard to the restoration of her green card in the United States.
The petitioner had challenged the order of the Magistrate Court rejecting his application for issuance of passport and permission to travel abroad.
The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a permanent resident of UD since the year 2016 and is a qualified commercial taxi driver through which he is earning livelihood for himself and his family. He obtained the driving license of New York State 6-7 years ago. The petitioner had obtained a Green Card and his employment as a driver is essential for the survival of his family. The petitioner had obtained a Green Card and one of the conditions prescribed for retaining it is his permanent residence, for which he has to obtain permanent residence six months from departure. It is necessary to return to the US within.
He submitted that in this case, if the petitioner does not return by 03.08.2024, his permanent residence is liable to be cancelled. Opposing the prayer, the State counsel submitted that there was every likelihood that the petitioner would flee from the process of law and abscond from prosecution.
However, he could not dispute the fact that the petitioner is not involved in any other case and the right to travel abroad is a part of the fundamental right enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, as held in Smt. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and Others ( 1978).
After hearing the submissions, the Court observed that, “There is nothing on record to even remotely suggest that the petitioner would flee from justice and would not join the proceedings after returning to the US.” It said that the petitioner has already been granted the concession of anticipatory bail by the learned Additional Sessions Court, Hoshiarpur.
Reliance was placed on the case of Parvez Noordin Lokhandwala vs State of Maharashtra and others, in which the apex court was considering an appeal against the decision of the Bombay High Court refusing to permit Parvez Noordin Lokhandwala to travel to the US for a period of eight weeks. This was denied. He had urged before the court that being a Green Card holder, it was mandatory for him to return to the US within the prescribed time of departure from that country, failing which the conditions for re-evaluation of Green Card would not be fulfilled. However, the High Court refused to relax the conditions imposed by it for granting interim bail on the ground that an FIR has been lodged against him.
Allowing his plea, the apex court said that in the facts of the present case, registration of the FIR should not bar the appellant from travelling to the US for a period of eight weeks to attend the proceedings for re-evaluation of his Green Card. In light of the above, Justice Brar allowed the plea and directed the trial court to issue the passport of the petitioner immediately. The Court, however, allowed the petitioner to travel to the United States subject to certain conditions.
