Mukesh Dhoot vs. The State Of Telangana

Facts

The petitioners, Mukesh Dhoot and Rajesh Dhoot, filed a criminal petition before the High Court of Telangana seeking to set aside an office note dated 07.06.2023 passed by the Special Judge for Economic Offences. The petitioners sought the release of their passports, which had been submitted to the court below as a condition for granting bail. The Special Judge, however, returned the petition without considering its merits, citing that the charge sheet had not been filed and the criminal case was pending. The petitioners argued that this action was arbitrary and illegal, as the court below had failed to examine the merits of their request for passport release.

Held

The High Court held that the Special Judge for Economic Offences ought to have passed a detailed order either releasing or rejecting the release of passports on merits. The Court found that the trial court's action of simply returning the petition, stating that the charge sheet was not filed and the crime was pending, was insufficient. The High Court directed the trial court to receive the petition filed by the petitioners and pass appropriate orders on its merits, in accordance with the law. The ratio decidendi is that a court must adjudicate applications on their merits, even if a charge sheet is not yet filed, especially concerning the release of documents like passports, which are often a condition of bail. The operative direction was to remand the matter to the trial court for fresh consideration.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Special Judge for Economic Offences erred in returning the petition for the release of passports without considering its merits, solely on the grounds that the charge sheet was not filed and the criminal case was pending? This issue turns on the procedural requirements for considering applications for the release of documents in a pending criminal investigation under the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners argued that the Special Judge acted arbitrarily and illegally by not looking into the merits of their application for passport release, which was filed to retrieve their passports submitted at the time of bail. They contended that the court below should have decided on the merits of the case. The respondents, the State of Telangana and the Superintendent of Central Tax, did not present any arguments as 'None Appeared' for Respondent No. 2, and the Assistant Public Prosecutor for Respondent No. 1 did not record any specific arguments in the judgment.