Cites accused failed to inform purpose and assure to cooperate with trial
PANAJI
The Fast Track Special Court (POCSO), Panaji, has rejected the application filed by an accused seeking re-issuance of his passport, citing the gravity of charges against him and the risk of absconding.
Presiding Officer Durga Madkaikar dismissed the accused’s plea as he is undergoing trial for grave offences of kidnapping, rape, threat, cheating and offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.
During the hearing, while the defence counsel argued that the pendency of a criminal case is not a legal bar to re-issuing a passport, the prosecution strongly objected, pointing to the severity of the offence committed against a minor and the risk of the accused fleeing abroad if granted travel documents.
“The re-issue of a passport may facilitate him in travelling abroad. There is every possibility of the accused absconding or evading the process of law, resulting in hampering the trial and defeating the ends of justice. The accused has not shown any compelling necessity or urgency warranting re-issuing the passport at this stage,” the PP stated, urging to reject the application.
The Court also noted that the application was signed only by the advocate and not the accused himself, and it lacked any details about the purpose of seeking a passport.
“The application has been signed by the Advocate for the accused and not by the accused, who has not shown the purpose of issuing the passport, i.e., whether he wants the passport for educational purposes, employment or for medical purposes. Further, the accused has also not undertaken that after obtaining the passport he will not flee from the jurisdiction of this court since the offences under which the accused has been charged are grave, heinous and against the minor victim,” the court observed.
“The matter is at the stage of evidence of PW2. The accused has sought the re-issue of passport for a period of 10 years. Therefore, there is every possibility that the accused may flee from the jurisdiction of this court in case the passport is re-issued to him,” the Court further noted while dismissing the “non-maintainable” application.
