AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M G Uma, J
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner on the office objection regarding maintainability of the petition. It is stated that the petitioner should have filed the writ petition and not the criminal petition under Section 482 of Cr.PC. Learned counsel submits that there is extreme urgency in the matter as the petitioner is seeking direction to respondent No.3 to issue permission to accompany the dead body of her husband for transportation to UK for the purpose of performing last rituals. Considering the urgency in the matter, the office objection is ignored.
Heard Sri Arun K.S. learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Rangaswamy, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and Sri. H. Shanthi Bhushan, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India for respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Perused the materials on records.
It is the contention of the petitioner that she is the wife of the deceased David James Willis, a British citizen. He died on 02.11.2024 at Kolkata. As per Annexure-F, Foreigners Registration Office, Moyna, Barasat, West Bengal, issued No Objection Certificate to transport the dead body of the decease to his native country. Therefore, the petitioner, being the wife of the deceased is seeking direction to respondent No.3 to issue permission to accompany the dead body of her husband to UK for the purpose of performing the last rituals.
Learned Deputy Solicitor General of India produced the instructions received by him from Foreigners Regional Registration Office and submitted that, as per paragraph No.1.19 of VISA manual, FRROS cannot issue the exit permit to the petitioner till the conclusion of criminal case which is registered against him. It is stated that Crime No.216/2021 of Hennur police station was registered against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 380, 384, 389, 406, 419, 420 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. After filing the charge sheet, C.C.No.27011/2022 is pending for trail before the learned IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore. In view of that, the DCP Bangalore has issued the look out circular. Under such circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled for such relief. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the petition.
Learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 opposing the petition submitted that criminal case is registered against the petitioner and is pending before the learned IV ACMM Bangalore. The petitioner was granted bail, subject to conditions. One of the conditions is that the petitioner shall mark her appearance on regular basis on each hearing date. The look out circular is already in force, which was issued by the DCP, Bangalore. Under such circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the petition.
In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:
“Whether the Petitioner has made
out any grounds to allow the petition?"
My answer to the above point is in ‘Affirmative’ for the following:
REASONS
It is the specific contention of the respondents that the petitioner is a Bangladeshi citizen, who married the deceased and now is the resident of Bangalore. The deceased died at kolkata and he is the citizen of UK. As per Annexure - F dated 07.11.2024, the Foreigners Registration Office issued the NOC for the petitioner to transport the dead body of the deceased to his native country. Admittedly, a criminal case C.C.No.27011/2022 is now pending before the learned IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore and look out circular issued by DCP Bangalore is in force, which prevents the petitioner from traveling out of the country. As per Paragraph No.1.19 of VISA manual, the FRROS is barred from issuing the exit permit to the petitioner till conclusion of the criminal case. But the peculiar facts and circumstances urged by the petitioner is to be considered with a human touch. Therefore, I am of the opinion that respondent No.1 may be directed to suspend the look out circular for a limited period of 60 days from today, to enable the petitioner to accompany the dead body of the deceased to UK to perform last rights there.
Learned counsel for the petitioner on instructions undertakes to file necessary affidavit before this Court undertaking to return back to India and to report before the jurisdictional police on or before the expiry of 60th day from today. His submission is placed on record.
Accordingly, I answer the above point in the Affirmative and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The petition is allowed.
(ii) The petitioner is permitted to travel to UK along with the dead body of the deceased to perform the last rituals.
Respondent No.1 is directed to suspend the look out circular for a period of 60 days from today to enable the petitioner to accompany the dead body of her husband to UK.
The petitioner is directed to file the affidavit before this Court, undertaking to abide by the conditions, come back to India and appear before the Investigating Officer at Hennur police station on or before 60th day from today.
The surety offered by the petitioner while releasing on bail shall hold good for the conditions imposed while allowing this petition.
If in case, the petitioner does not return to India and fails to appear before the Investigating Officer as directed, respondent No.1 will be at liberty to review the look out notice which is suspended temporarily.
Hand delivery of this order is permitted.