The Allahabad High Court, while rejecting an application of anticipatory bail filed in connection with a First Information Report (FIR) that alleged violations of sections 419, 420, 467, 468, and 471, of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), as well as Section 12 of the Passport Act, 1967 (Act), noted that it is not obligatory to obtain prior sanction for filing an FIR and initiating an investigation, even when it involves a public servant.
As per the order passed by Justice Krishan Pahal, “The FIR was instituted by the SI Gyan Prakash Shukla PS Barhalganj, Dist. Gorakhpur on 26.06.2023 with the allegations that it has come to his knowledge that RANJEET s/o Ram Bahadur has procured three passports i.e. No. K3464309 as Ranjeet Sahani s/o Ram Bahadur Sahani, No. P4364782 as Ranjeet Nishad s/o Bahadur Nishad and No. W8305151 as Ranjeet Nishad s/o Bahadur Nishad.”
The next paragraph of the order states that “Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that he is maliciously being prosecuted in the present case due to ulterior motive and has the apprehension of his arrest. The applicant has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged by the prosecution. Learned counsel has next stated that the informant is the Sub Inspector and he has not divulged the person from whom he had received the said information. The applicant is an illiterate and rustic person and for the sake of employment he had got his passport applications filed through broker and the discrepancy, if any, is due to his negligence.”
Counsel for the applicant Advocates Naveen Tiwari & Ritik Raj, further argued that the passports have been issued after due enquiry and investigation. The police had demanded bribe from him and after the refusal to grease their palm, the instant FIR has been instituted.
The court in its order recorded the plea of the counsel for the applicant that after getting the knowledge of the said multiplicity of applications for passport, he had given an application for the closure of the File on 10.04.2023. The same is filed as Annexure-4 to the affidavit filed with the anticipatory bail application. The instant FIR has been lodged two months thereafter. The files of the applicant have been closed and the same have been filed as Annexure-5 to the affidavit filed with the bail application, as such nothing remains against the applicant.
The counsel for the applicant further argued that a letter for apology has been sent by the applicant to the Regional Passport Officer, Lucknow on 04.07.2023 which is filed as annexure-7 to the affidavit filed with the anticipatory bail application.
The order further states that the Learned Counsel for the applicant has vehemently argued that the instant FIR has no legs to stand as it has been lodged without mandatory previous sanction of the Central government as provided under Section 15 of the Passports Act, 1967. The said provision is as under:
15. Previous sanction of Central Government necessary.— No prosecution shall be instituted against any person in respect of any offence under this Act without the previous sanction of the Central Government or such officer or authority as may be authorized by that Government by order in writing in this behalf.
Representing the state, the AGA Shri. Ram Mohit Yadav has asserted that the applicant in question was engaged in fraudulent activities, and thus acquired three passports through falsifying his identity and familial connections. These passports were obtained under the names: K3464309 as Ranjeet Sahani, son of Ram Bahadur Sahani; P4364782 as Ranjeet Nishad, son of Bahadur Nishad; and W8305151 as Ranjeet Nishad, son of Bahadur Nishad. Remarkably, the individual’s Aadhar card identifies him as RANJEET, son of Ram Bahadur. The acquisition of these passports involved the submission of fabricated documents and deceitful practices.
Furthermore, the learned Attorney General argues that there exists no reasonable explanation for the individual’s repeated attempts to obtain passports. Despite acknowledging the absence of prior criminal history, it is contended that the case is straightforward and conclusive.
Referring to P. Prathapachandran Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, Ernakula1, the High Court opined that the point of time relevant for the competent authority to accord sanction to prosecute under Section 19(1)(c) of the Act is the time when the Court is called upon to take cognizance of the offence. The court noted that, Therefore, the contention raised by the petitioner against the validity of the sanction accorded under Section 19(I)(c) of the Act and the competency of the officer who granted the sanction are untenable.
Referring to the Supreme Court judgement in Pratibha Manchanda & Anr. Vs. State of Haryana & Anr. the court noted that, the relief of anticipatory bail is aimed at safeguarding individual rights. While it serves as a crucial tool to prevent the misuse of the power of arrest and protects innocent individuals from harassment, it also presents challenges in maintaining a delicate balance between individual rights and the interests of justice. The tight rope we must walk lies in striking a balance between safeguarding individual rights and protecting public interest. Accordingly, the court rejected the anticipatory bail application.