SHRI RAHUL VAID  Vs UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

W.P.(C) 11072/2020 Page 1 of 5$~19
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 25thJanuary, 2021
+ W.P.(C) 11072/2020 & CM APPLs. 34572/2020, 34573/2020,
34574/2020
SH. RAHUL VAID ….. Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rohit Goel, Advocate
(M-9312248785)
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ….. Respondents
Through: Mr. Anil Soni, CGSC with Mr.
Devesh Dubey, Advocate
(M-9312224805)
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
1. This hearing has been done in hybrid mode (physical and virtual
hearing).
2. In accordance with the last order dated 6thJanuary, 2021, ld. counsel
for the Petitioner has sought instructions and submits that his passport has
been renewed for a period of five years by the Consulate General of India in
Sydney.
3. There is an impleadment application, CM Appl. No. 2670/2021,
which has been filed by Ms. Kanika Vaid – the wife of the Petitioner in this
matter. Various orders passed by the Court in the criminal proceedings
which are pending against the Petitioner have been placed on record. It is
her submission that the renewal of the passport was subject to various
conditions as contained in the order dated 25thNovember, 2019, passed by
the Special Judge (NDPS), North, Rohini Courts, Delhi in the revision
petition filed by the Petitioner. She further submits that this order has been
2021:DHC:276W.P.(C) 11072/2020 Page 2 of 5upheld by this Court vide order dated 29thJanuary, 2020 in Crl.M.C
6194/2019 titled Kanika Vaid v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr . However,
though the old passport has been suspended and a new one has been issued
there is no clarity as to whether the conditions imposed vide order dated 25th
November 2019 continue to operate qua the Petitioner or not. This position
deserves to be clarified according to the intervenor.
4. A perusal of the impleadment shows that there are matrimonial
disputes between the Petitioner and his wife leading to complaints being
filed. In one such complaint filed by Ms.Vaid, the Petitioner sought
anticipatory bail which was dismissed. Since he was already in Australia,
finally he travelled to India and was even arrested. The Petitioner then
sought permission to travel to Australia which was initially dismissed on
26thAugust 2019. However, in a Revision petition filed by the Petitioner,
vide order dated 25thNovember 2019, the Sessions Court granted permission
to travel subject to the following conditions:
“13. In view of such observations, this court passes the
following directions:
i) That the order dated 26.08.2019 passed in FIR
No.403/18, U/s 498-A/406/313/354-A/34 IPC, PS
Model Town is set-aside and, thus, the applicant is
permitted to travel/go abroad for resuming his duty;
ii) That the court directs the Passport Authority to
consider the application of the applicant to be moved
to renew the passport of the applicant in accordance
with law and rules without influencing by any findings
passed in this order;
iii) That in case the applicant joined his duties in
Australia then the applicant shall supply all his
functioning mobile numbers and the place of abode
within 10 days to the ld. Trial Court as well as to the
Consulate General of India in the said country;
2021:DHC:276W.P.(C) 11072/2020 Page 3 of 5iv) That the applicant shall not visit any other country
except India and Australia without obtaining prior
permission of the court;
v) That the applicant shall submit his passport within
48 hours immediately to the office of Consulate
General of India in Australia and whenever he shall
have to come to India, he shall have to apply for the
release of his passport;
vi) That the applicant shall appear either himself or
through his counsel on each date of hearing unless the
presence of the applicant is unavoidable, as per
directions to be passed, by the ld. Trial Court. Ld.
Counsel for the applicant shall submit before the 1d.
Trial Court that he will not dispute the identity of the
applicant during trial on dates when the applicant will
appear
through his counsel;
vii) That in case the applicant violates any of the
condition, then the ld. Trial Court is at liberty to pass
any order in accordance with the law including the
order to reconsider the earlier orders passed.”
5. The above order was challenged by the Petitioner before this court in
Crl.M.C 6194/2019 titled Kanika Vaid v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr . The
same was dismissed by a Ld Single Judge vide order dated 29thJanuary
2020. The operative portion of the said order is set out below:
“As regards the prayer that has been made by the
petitioner seeking the release of the said amount of
Rs.5,00,000/- which has been deposited by the
respondent no.2 in terms of directions dated
27.01.2020 in the present petition, in as much as, the
proceedings are still pending against the order of
grant of maintenance dated 08.08.2019 in CA No.
176/2019, presently no such order for the release of the
amount of Rs.5,00,000/- as deposited by the respondent
no.2 can be granted. However, the learned Courts
2021:DHC:276W.P.(C) 11072/2020 Page 4 of 5seized with the maintenance proceedings qua
maintenance to be granted to the petitioner and the
minor child born of the wedlock between the petitioner
no.1 and the respondent no.2 may consider the aspect
of the release of the said sum of Rs.5,00,000/- for the
minor child of the respondent no.2 if considered
appropriate during the course of the ·said maintenance
proceedings. No further orders in relation to the said
aspect are called for.
As regards the submissions made on behalf of the
petitioner that the respondent no.2 be not permitted to
travel abroad for his employment, as rightly observed
by the learned Revisional Court vide the impugned
order dated 25 .11.2019, no such restriction as sought
by the respondent no.2, is presently required to be
imposed in view of the specific conditions imposed vide
para 13 of the impugned order dated 25.11.2019,
which shall continue.
It has however, been submitted on behalf of the
petitioner and not refuted on behalf of the respondent
no.2 that the respondent no.2 has since been issued a
fresh passport, the copy of the same be placed on the
record and be supplied to the State and in as much as
it has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that
the details of the spouse of the respondent no.2 and of
the child born of the wedlock between the petitioner
and the respondent no.2 have not been given to the
Australian Consulate and to the Indian Consulate, the
details in relation thereto, shall be provided by the
respondent no.2 to both Consulates before he leaves
the country.
No further directions are called for.
The petition stands disposed of.”
6. It is, thus, clear from the above directions issued that the conditions
contained in the order dated 25thNovember, 2019 shall continue to apply on
the Petitioner. Ld. counsel for the Petitioner submits that he does not dispute
2021:DHC:276W.P.(C) 11072/2020 Page 5 of 5this position. Accordingly, the Ministry of External Affairs and the
Consulate General of India in Sydney shall ensure that the Petitioner strictly
abides by the conditions contained in the order dated 25thNovember, 2019
upheld by this Court vide order dated 29thJanuary, 2020.
7. Since the new passport has now been issued for a period of five years,
the old passport which was suspended shall now be treated as cancelled.
8. No further orders are called for in this matter. The petition and all
pending applications are disposed of.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUDGE
JANUARY 25, 2021
Rahul/Ap
2021:DHC:276