'Hajj Is A Religious Duty For Every Muslim': Delhi HC Allows Septuagenarian NDPS Convict To Visit Makka Madina

The bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed, “The Hajj pilgrimage holds immense significance in the Islamic faith, representing one of the five pillars of Islam, and is a religious duty for every Muslim. Its importance cannot be overstated, both spiritually and culturally, for Muslims.”

Petitioner Syed Abu Ala was convicted by the trial Court for the commission of offences under Section 29 read with Section 21(c) of the NDPS Act and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 11 years 6 months along with a fine of Rs. 2,00,000/-. He was further convicted under section 25A of the NDPS Act and sentenced to undergo RI for 5 years with a fine of Rs. 50,000/. On appeal, his sentence was suspended with the condition that he would not leave the city and surrender his passport.

The petitioner approached the High Court with this application filed under Section 482 CrPC seeking permission to visit Makka-Madina in Saudi Arabia to perform Umrah along with directions to the Regional Passport Officer, New Delhi to issue a passport in favour of the applicant.

After going through Section 6(2) of the Passports Act, 1967 which contained grounds for refusal of a passport the Court provided two grounds for refusal of passport namely:

1. If the applicant has been found guilty of any morally reprehensible offence by an Indian court and sentenced to imprisonment for a period of at least two years, within the last five years prior to the date of application.
2. If there are criminal proceedings pending against the applicant in an Indian court for any offence.

The Court further relied on the decision of Delhi High Court in Sabir v. State (NCT of Delhi) 2023 SCC OnLine Del 4116 and quoted, ”this Court notes that clause (e) and (f) of Section 6(2) of the Passport Act are exclusive of each other. It can be observed that clause (e) of Section 6(2) pertains to cases in which the applicant have completed 05 years from the date of conviction, and, on the other hand, clause (f) of Section 6(2) pertains to cases which are pending before the court for trial. This essentially reveals that clause (e) deals with situations where no appeal from conviction is pending, as in cases where an appeal would be pending, the provision of clause (f) would come into play, since it is settled law that an appeal would amount to continuance of criminal proceedings.”

Accordingly, the Court noted that it has the power to grant exemption or no objection for the issuance of a passport to the appellant whose criminal appeal is pending before this Court.

The Court noted that the applicant's appeal has been pending since 2010 and out of 11 years and 6 months for which he was imprisoned he has already undergone a period of 10 years and 3 months in judicial custody before his sentence was suspended.

The Court further noted that the applicant has been out on bail for more than 13 years, and there is no adverse report that he has misused the liberty granted to him.

Conclusively, the Court stated that it is not inclined to obstruct the appellant’s religious obligations solely because his appeal has been pending for years. Hence, the court allowed the application.

Cause Title: Syed Abu Ala v. NCB (Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC: 2253)

Appearance:

Appellant: Adv. Yogesh Saxena and Adv. Priya Saxena

Respondent: Senior Standing Counsel for State Subhash Bansal, Adv. Shashwat Bansal

Click here to read/download Judgment