9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 1040X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gation, the mobile of the Petitioner was seized and from the messages of the Petitioner s phone, it is revealed that the Petitioner was to deliver the human embryos to the Indo Nippon IVF Clinic in Bandra (W), Mumbai, and when the investigation went to the said clinic and taken a search they found four documents relevant to the investigation. Thereafter at the relevant time, the Petitioner voluntarily and willingly surrendered his Malaysian passport bearing A37044226 to the DRI. It is pertinent to mention at this stage that a show cause notice has been issued to the Petitioner. Petitioner is a Malaysian National, and if his passport is returned to him, he will leave India and may not return for adjudication, and it will be very difficult ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es. After completing formalities at Airport, some officers of Respondent No.1 approached to the Petitioner and made inquiries. It is the case of the Petitioner that Respondent No.1 forcefully confiscated all personal belongings of the Petitioner including Malaysian Passport and, illegally detained him at the Airport for 6 hours. It is stated by the Petitioner that the Petitioner was then taken to the office of Respondent No.1 where the Petitioner was illegally detained and tortured with a view to making the Petitioner confess to some alleged smuggling of goods into India. It is also the case of the petitioner that the Petitioner was neither informed the grounds of his arrest/detention nor was he produced before a Magistrate during the entir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Respondent No.1 has illegally retained the passport of the Petitioner and violated the Petitioner s fundamental right of personal liberty and the right to travel abroad as also his fundamental rights by illegally impounding and retaining the Malaysian Passport of the Petitioner without informing him the grounds of his arrest or producing the Petitioner before a Magistrate. It is submitted that as per provision of Customs Act, 1962, Respondent No.1 is required to inform the Petitioner the grounds of his arrest and to produce him before the Magistrate without any delay. It is submitted that Respondent No.1 could not have collected ₹ 30,000/- towards the alleged bail of the Petitioner. It is submitted that though it is assumed that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a) and M Kaja Mohaindeen (supra) for the aforesaid legal proposition. The learned counsel also invites attention of this court to provisions of the Customs Act and the Foreigners Act, and submits that there is no provision under the Customs Act or Cr.PC. which authorizes the Respondents to impound the passport. It is submitted that the provisions of the Foreigners Act would prevail over the provisions of the Customs Act. 5. The learned counsel for Respondent No.1 submits that the petitioner is involved in smuggling of human embryos into India by misdeclaring the same to the Malaysian Customs authorities as stem cells. It is submitted that when the petitioner was intercepted at the airport, a canister was found containing h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al, and during the period from 01/01/2017 to 15/03/2019 he visited India at least for 8 times, details of his arrival and departure have been placed on record by letter dated 15/05/2019 issued by Police Inspector (Legal) Airport Branch, CSMI, Airport Mumbai. The purpose for his visit to India on eight different dates is not brought on record by the Petitioner. There are serious allegations against the Petitioner that the Petitioner is involved in smuggling of human embryos. The learned counsel for Respondent No.1 submitted that during the course of investigation, the mobile of the Petitioner was seized and from the messages of the Petitioner s phone, it is revealed that the Petitioner was to deliver the human embryos to the Indo Nippon IVF ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Office (F..R.R.O), Mumbai regarding apprehension of the Petitioner in connection with the alleged offence and releasing him on bail, about his arrangement for stay. It is further informed to FRRO by Respondent No.1 that VISA issued to the Petitioner is valid upto 19/07/2019 and each stay is not to exceed 45 days. Therefore office of Respondent No.1 has advised Malaysian embassy to approach the office FRRO for VISA related issues of the Petitioner. From the record it is revealed that as directed by this Court dated 19/07/2019, by letter dated 19/07/2019 Respondent No.1 has furnished coloured photocopies of the passport and VISA of the Petitioner to the Petitioner. By the said letter it is informed to the Petitioner that the original passpor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
