The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS Act, praying that in the circumstances stated in the lvlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to set aside the order passed in Crl. M.P.No.782 of 2025 in C.C. No. 5'11 of 2015 on the file of the Chief Judicial fVlagistrate, Hyderabad, dated 24. 06. 2025 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad to the limited extent that it imposes the impugned condition directing the Petitioner to seek permission from the Ld. Trial Court before travelling abroad i.e., condition in paragraph 17 of the order, lf the Petitioner/A9 wants to travel abroad, he has to seek permission from the court. l.A. NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS Act, praying that in the circumstances stated in the [/lemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to Permit and enable the Petitioner to travel abroad to the United States of America for the purpose of attending business meetings and conferences scheduled between 18. 09. 2025 anC 05. 10. 2025 in Michigan, USA, and to return to lndia on or before 06. 1O.2025 as per the detailed itinerary provided under Paragraph 9 of the accompanying crimirral petition, pending disposal of the criminal petition. This Petition t;oming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of c'irrinar Petition and upon hearing the arguments of It/r. T S ANIRUDIl llEDDY, Advocate for the petitioner and tMr. JITHENDER RAo vEERAIVALL.A. the Additional public prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Sole Respondent. The Court made the following: ORDER jn, r ; 1 l i THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA c RIIUII NAL PE TITIQN No. 1186 7oF 20 ORDER: This crrminar petition is fired by the petitioner seeking to set aside the order passed in crr.M.p.No.7B2 of 202sin c.c.No .s11 of 2015, dated 24.06.202s on the fire of reaned chief Judiciar lVlagistrate, Hyderabad (for short,trial Court,). 2' Heard the submissions of sri Madhav Khurana, rearned counsel for the petitioner and sri Jithender Rao veeramaila, learned Additionar pubric prosecutor for respondent No.1 _ state. 3' The rearned petitioner counset has submitted that his passport was to be renewed and therefore, he fired a crr'M'p-No.782 0f 2025 before the triar court and it was ordered in his favour, but only condition imposed was that he was not supposed to traver abroad. Ji-rst because of that rider in the order, the Passport authorities has refused to renew his passport and hence' he is aggrieved by the said order and therefore, prayed to remove the said condition in the order dated 24.06.2025. He further submitted that he has been travering many a times, during the pendency of this case. He has submitted the dates and his visits to thb severat countries, which discroses that he has travered 28 times \ ., altogether frorn 2015 to 2024 to several countries ancl that he has .\\^ always been cooperating with the court ancj has not violated any orders so far and on all these occasions, there was no prior permission required for the said travel. But now since the passport was reqLrired to tlre renewed, he has approached the Court and the court, while allowing his application, has imposed this condition not allowing him tc,travel aboard and that it woui.J cause loss, both on his personal and official obligations, if his passport is not renewed his Fundamental Right would get affected. He therefore, prayed to set aside the said condition imposed in the orders dated 24.06.202s by the trial Cour1. 4- The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the petitioner ltas filed another petition seeking permission to travel abroad, but it is pending before the trial court and the Supreme court has stayed all further proceedings. Therefore, the said petition also would be stayed and hence, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has replied submitting that the orders in the crr.M.p.No.7B2 of 2o2s were passed prior to the orders of the supreme court, but subsequenfly he has I I J q * t I I i 3 approached the Supreme Court, wherein the stay was granted, staying in all further proceedings before the trial Court

6. Perused the record

7. A perusal of the record discloses that the stay orders granted by the Supreme Court are dated 22.08.2025, the impugned order is dated 24.06.2025. lt is further disclosed that the other petition filed by the petitioner herein for seeking permission to travel, is pending before the trial Court. Since there is a stay order granted by the Supreme Court, the trial Court cannot adjudicate any of the said petitions right now. The petitioner has also filed a copy of the order of Ministry of External Affairs, Regional Passport Office, Ghaziabad, where under the passport authorities have rejected the renewal of his passport, observing that:- (9):- "lt is essential to mention that a pass6rorf functions as a travel document and is required for any lndian citizen wishing to travel abroad. Therefore, whenever you intend to travel abroad, you should submit your passpod application to the Passporf Authority, along with the requisite permission from the concerned Court to depart from lndia, particularly if crintinal proceedings continue to remain pending at the time of your application." 1 I B. lt is further mentioned in the orders that if he is not satisfied with the decision of the passport authority, he may prefer an appeal under Section 1 1 of the Passport Act, 1967 before the appellate authority, i.e., the Joint Secretary, PSP and CPO, Ministry of i Ji \ t \ 4 External Affairs, within G0 days from the issuance of the order. The said order is dated 13.08.2025. Thus, the petitioner, without availing the remedy of approaching the appellate authority has resorted to filing this application before this court seeking to relax the condition imposed by the triar court. ln the facts and circumstances, it would be appropriate for the petitioner to avail the remedy available before the concerned appellate authority for renewal of his passport.

9. with the said observation, the present petition is disposed of. ln case, if he does not get any relief before the said authority, he is at liberty to seek appropriate remedies according to law. [\4iscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed To, //TRUE COPYII Sd/. A. PRATHIMA EPUTY REGIST SECTION OFFICER The Chief tMetropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad. '-' The Station House Officer, Central Crime Station police Station, Hyderabad Two CCS to the Public prosecutor, H igh Court of TS at Hyderabad. (OUT ) ONE CC tO [T/r.. T S ANIRUDH RE DDY Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Copies 1 2 3 4 5 RC/kam HIGH COURT DATED: 2410912025 ORDER CRLP.No.11867 ot 2025 .tltE S14 -4: e oR I 0E ll0l/ m \ I L Sr'476pf,O 1* ) t * The Criminal Petition is Disposed of. ,@ ,-) 'l ( LL l)^'' It