wp342.11 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 342 OF 2011 1 Uddhav s/o Kondiram Markad, age 36 years, Occ. Service, R/o. Nivadunge, Tq. Pathardi, District Ahmednagar 2 Sudhir s/o Mohanrao Markad Age 38 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. Nivadunge, Tq. Pathardi District Ahmednagar 3 Ashru s/o Shankar Mane, Age 69 years, Occ. Pensioner, R/o. Nivadunge, Tq. Pathardi, District Ahmednagar ...Petitioners Versus 1 The state of Maharashtra (Copy to be served on the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad) 2 The Union of India, The Passport Officer, The Regional Passport Office, Manish Commercial Centre, 216-A, Dr. A.B. Road, Worali, Mumbai 400 030 (Copy to be served on Standing Counsel, UOI, High Court Bench at Aurangabad) ...Respondents ..... Mr. D.R. Markad, advocate for the petitioners Mr. V.D. Rakh, A.P.P. for respondent No. 1-State None for the respondent No.2 ..... wp342.11 -2- CORAM: A.V. POTDAR, J. DATED: 4TH MAY, 2011 JUDGMENT:- 1 Heard. 2 Notice. Learned APP accepts notice of respondent No.1. Even though Assistant Solicitor General served/intimated about today’s date, absent when called out. Acknowledgment about service on the office of Assistant Solicitor General of India is placed on record and marked “X” for identification. 3 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 4 By the present petition, the petitioners have approached this Court for issuance of direction giving no objection to the petitioners to obtain passport and to quash and set aside the order passed below Exh.122 by the learned J.M.F.C. Pathardi on 29.3.2011 in Summary Case No. 186 of 2009. 5 The counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners and 24 others were arrayed as accused in Crime No.75 of 2009 registered wp342.11 -3- with Pathardi police station for the offences publishable under Selections 143, 353, 341 of I.P.C. r.w. Section 37(1) (3)/135 of Bombay Police Act on 26.3.2009. It is alleged that this offence came to be registered as on that day there was an agitation by the public at large locally known as “Rasta Roka Andolan”. After completion of investigation, charge sheet came to be filed in the court of learned J.M.F.C. Pathardi and it is numbered as Summary Case No. 186 of 2009. On the date of arrest, these petitioners came to be released on bail. It is informed that now the summary case is scheduled for recording plea of the petitioners on 29.9.2011. It is further submitted that the petitioner No.1 is working as teacher. The petitioner No.2 is agriculturist and the petitioner No.3 is retired primary teacher. It is further stated that they are members of Hareshwar Club Holiday Pvt. Limited, Pune. The said club has offered some scheme in concession to the petitioners for visiting abroad. The maximum period of the scheme for 6 days and minimum period of the scheme for 3 days. As the concession is offered by the said club to these petitioners, they intend to go abroad either for maximum period or for minimum period. They have applied for the passport, however, they were informed that as per clause 17(b)(c) if any criminal proceeding is pending pending against the applicant, who applied for passport, they require to obtain no objection from the concerned Court. Accordingly they moved an application before the learned J.M.F.C. Pathardi, which is at Exh.122 wp342.11 -4- which came to be rejected. Hence, they are before this Court in its writ jurisdiction. 6 Perusal of record shows that the petitioners are not hardened criminal. Neither they are habitual offenders. Summary case which is pending against them is on account of agitation i.e. Rasta Roko Andaloan. In the said case they are already released on bail. The next date is to record their plea is scheduled in the month of September 2011. The tour is arranged by Hareshwar Club Holiday Pvt. Limited, Pune, of which they are members. Considering their financial condition as well as social status, there is no likelihood that they will abscond and will not be available for trial if no objection is given to them to obtain passport. Considering these aspects, the writ petition succeeds. 7 The writ petition is thus allowed in terms of prayer clause B and disposed of. Rule is made absolute on the terms indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. *****