APHC010480192025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] WEDNESDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION Nos:9594, 9620 & 9626 of 2025 Crl.P.No.9594 of 2025 Between: 1.KOLLU RAVEENDRA, S/O. LATE SUBBA RAO, AGED 52 YEARS, FLINDU, R/O. D.NO.28/331, CIRCLEPETA, MACHILIPATNAM. . ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2.STATION HOUSE OFFICER, SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE PEDANA POLICE STATION ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1.MALLAVOLU NIKITHA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Crl.P.No.9620 of 2025 Between: 1.KOLLU RAVEENDRA, S/O. LATE SUBBA RAO, AGED 52 YEARS, HINDU, R/O. D.NO.28/331, CIRCLEPETA MACHILIPATNAM. 2 ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2.STATION HOUSE OFFICER, SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, R.PET POLICE STATION ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1.MALLAVOLU NIKITHA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Crl.P.No.9626 of 2025 Between: 1.KOLLU RAVEENDRA, S/O. LATE SUBBA RAO, AGED 52 YEARS, HINDU, R/O. D.NO.28/331, CIRCLEPETA MACHILIPATNAM. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2.STATION HOUSE OFFICER, SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, INUGUDURU POLICE STATION. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1.MALLAVOLU NIKITHA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 3 The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER: Criminal Petition No.9594 of 2025 has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, 'the BNSS'), challenging the order dated 09.06.2025 in Criminal M.P.No.1378 of 2025 in C.C.No.1304 of 2020 on the file of the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class Special Mobile Court for Trial of Cases under PCR Act-cum-IX Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Machilipatnam (for short, 'learned IX ADJ'). 2. Criminal Petition No. 9620 of 2025 has been filed under Section 528 of 'the BNSS' challenging the order dated 12.06.2025 in Criminal M.P.No.1223 of 2025 in C.C.No.1152 of 2020 on the file of the Court of learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class at Machilipatnam. 3. Criminal Petition No.9626 of 2025 has been filed under Section 528 of ‘the BNSS’ challenging the order dated 12.06.2025 in Criminal M.P.No.1221 of 2025 in C.C.No.593 of 2021 on the file of the Court of the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class at Machilipatnam. 4. These three criminal petitions are heard together and disposed of by way of his common order as they are filed by one petitioner although they arise out of two different crimes. 4 5. In the three impugned orders, the learned trial Courts partly allowed the petitions filed by the petitioner under Section 6 (2) (f) of the Passports Act, 1967 granted no-objection certificate for a period of four months. 6. Case of the Petitioner is that he is accused No.1 in C.C.No.1304/2020 for the offences punishable under Section 188 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ and Sections 3 of Epidemic Disease Act, 1897 and accused No.1 in C.C.No.1152/2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 341 and 188 read with Section 34 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ and accused No.1 in C.C.No.593/2021 for the offence punishable under Section 353 of ‘the I.P.C.’ The Petitioner has been elected as a Member of Legislative Assembly from Machilipatnam Assembly Constituency in 2024 General Elections and appointed as Minister in the cabinet of Andhra Pradesh State. His role necessitates frequent foreign travel. He was earlier granted a limited no objection certificate for specific trips. He now sought for a long-term no objection certificate for five or ten years to avoid approaching the Court repeatedly. 7. Heard Ms. M.Nikitha, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State. 8. The petitioner is presently serving as Cabinet Minister. He is an elected Member of Legislative Assembly from Machilipatnam Assembly Constituency. The learned IX ADJ apprehended absconding of the petitioner if such permission is granted. Learned IX ADJ even though cited a decision of this Court in Y.S.Jagan Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh1, wherein a 1 Criminal Petition No. 170 of 2025 dated 07-01-2025 5 long-term no objection certificate was permitted, it observed that such order was passed under specific circumstances and after a detailed scrutiny by this Court. Learned IX ADJ rejected the prayer of the petitioner on the score that he failed to account the details about the purpose, dates, duration and countries intended to visit. Learned IX ADJ observed that the request of the petitioner is general and speculative. In Sudheer Reddy Mule v. State of Andhra Pradesh2, this Court, in similar circumstances, has given permission for renewal of passport with certain conditions. 9. In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India3, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that right to travel abroad is recognized as facet of the fundamental right originating from Article 19 of the Constitution of India and it is an integral component of the right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 10. In Parvez Noordin Lokhandwalla v. State of Maharashtra4, the Hon'ble Apex Court held at para No. 24 as under: "Having regard to the genesis of the dispute as well as the issue as to whether the appellant is likely to flee from justice if he were to be permitted to travel to the U.S., we find, on the basis of the previous record of the appellant, that there is no reason for justification to deny him the permission which has been sought to travel to the U.S. for eight weeks." 11. In Karti P.Chidambaram v. State of Madras5, a learned single judge of the High Court of Madras held at para No. 88 as under: 2 Criminal Petition No. 8013 of 2025 dated 18-08-2025 3 1978 AIR 597 4 AIR 2021 SC 641 5W.P.No. 1190 of 2024 dated 28-03-2024 6 "Thus, and also for the reason that the proposal to limit the period of passport is bereft of any reasoning, I see no impediment for the issuance of a passport with regular validity of 10 years and direct the respondent to do so forthwith. The passport, once received by the petitioner, shall immediately be surrendered to the Court in whose possession it has been thus far." 12. In Paramjit Singh v. State of Punjab6, the Hon'ble Apex Court permitted the petitioner therein to travel abroad, despite pendency of charges, by imposing appropriate conditions. 13. The Union of India, having recognized the practical difficulties faced by the individuals in similar situations, issued a Circular in G.S.R.No. 570 (E) dated 25-08-1993 authorizing Courts to grant permission to travel abroad and clarifying that upon such permission being granted, the passport authority may issue or renew a passport notwithstanding pendency of criminal cases. Both learned trial Courts were not supposed to deny the request for travel abroad in a mechanical fashion without examining the possibility of the petitioner absconding from the clutches of law. 14. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the request of the petitioner ought to have been considered by the learned trial Courts. The order dated 09.06.2025 in Criminal M.P.No.1378 of 2025 in C.C.No.1304 of 2020 on the file of the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class Special Mobile Court for Trial of Cases under PCR Act-cum-IX Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Machilipatnam and the order dated 12.06.2025 in Criminal M.P.No.1223 of 2025 in C.C.No.1152 of 2020 on the file of the Court of learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class at Machilipatnam, and the 6 2011 Supreme (P & H) 614 7 order dated 12.06.2025 in Criminal M.P.No.1221 of 2025 in C.C.No.593 of 2021 on the file of the Court of the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class at Machilipatnam, are liable to be set aside and are accordingly set aside. 15. The Petitioner is permitted to travel abroad for a continuous period of five years subject to the following conditions: i. The Petitioner herein shall submit an affidavit with all details of itinerary of his abroad visit with necessary proofs like air tickets, endorsements on visa and passport, if any, in C.C.No.1304 of 2020 on the file of the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class Special Mobile Court for Trial of Cases under PCR Act-cum-IX Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Machilipatnam, stating that when he leaves India for abroad during pendency of the said case, he would co-operate with the trial Court in concluding the proceedings at the earliest; and ii. The petitioner herein shall submit an affidavit with all details of itinerary of his abroad visit with necessary proofs like air tickets, endorsements on visa and passport, if any, in C.C.No.1152 of 2020 on the file of the Court of learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class at Machilipatnam, stating that when he leaves India for abroad during pendency 8 of the said case, he would co-operate with the trial Court in concluding the proceedings at the earliest; and iii. The petitioner herein shall submit an affidavit with all details of itinerary of his abroad visit with necessary proofs like air tickets, endorsements on visa and passport, if any, in C.C.No.593 of 2021 on the file of the Court of the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class at Machilipatnam, stating that when he leaves India for abroad during pendency of the said case, he would co-operate with the trial Court in concluding the proceedings at the earliest; 16. The Criminal Petitions are accordingly allowed. _______________________ Dr.Y.LAKSHMANA RAO, J. Date:17-09-2025 VTS