The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash the charge sheet against a physically disabled travel agent who is accused of helping renew the passport of a man alleged to be the most wanted by the Andhra Pradesh Anti-Terrorist Squad. The Court said the allegations are serious and affect national security, so the case must go to trial.

Court Refuses to Quash Charge Sheet:

The petitioner facilitated the passport renewal of an alleged most-wanted person. It was this assistance that led the police to later verify the passport application.

Against this backdrop, the Court observed, “If the petitioner, knowingly or otherwise, became an instrument in the chain of acts that facilitated identity verification and travel documentation of a person alleged to be involved in terrorist activities, the matter demands full judicial scrutiny.”

Justice M. Nagaprasanna also said, “Any individual - whether a private citizen, intermediary, or public servant - who, by act of commission or omission, acts against the interest of the Nation must be brought to book.”

The Bench further observed, “National security is not imperiled only by those who directly engage in unlawful acts; it is equally endangered by those who facilitate, enable, or negligently permit such acts to occur. The law must therefore reach every link in the chain.” The Court made these observations while dismissing the petition seeking to quash the charge sheet.

Case Against Travel Agent:

The petitioner is a physically disabled travel agent. According to the prosecution, he helped process police verification for passport renewal applications. During the investigation, it was found that his travel agency had helped renew the passport of Sri. Ibrahim Khalil, who is alleged to be the most wanted man by the Andhra Pradesh Anti-Terrorist Squad. After the investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the petitioner.

Arguments Before the Court:

The petitioner’s lawyer argued that the accused acted in good faith. He submitted that the petitioner only helped process passport applications submitted by clients and forwarded them to the authorities for police verification.

The respondent’s lawyer opposed this argument. He argued that the address used in the applications was fake and that the same address—the travel agency’s address—was used in 15 passport renewal applications. He also submitted that the petitioner acted against the law by helping renew the passport of a person alleged to have terrorist links.

Court’s Findings:

The Court observed, “Acting in such [proprietor of a travel agency] capacity, he is alleged to have furnished his own address in as many as fifteen passport applications, portraying the same as though they were the genuine residential addresses of the respective applicants seeking renewal of passports.”

The Court also noted that it was because of the applications processed through the petitioner that police verification was carried out. This later resulted in the renewal of passports for those applicants, including one person alleged to be involved in terrorist activities.

The Court held that “the gravity of the accusation lies in the consequence of the petitioner’s acts. By facilitating the clearance of applications founded on allegedly fabricated residential credentials, the petitioner is said to have enabled the renewal of a passport in favour of a person suspected of activities inimical to national security. Such allegations, if ultimately established in trial, transcend ordinary criminal misconduct and enter the realm of conduct prejudicial to the security and sovereignty of the Nation,” and therefore the case requires full judicial scrutiny.

Disability Plea Rejected:

The Court also refused to accept the petitioner’s defence based on his physical disability, poor health, or his claim that he was only a bona fide travel agent doing paperwork for clients. It observed, “When the allegation concerns facilitation of documentation in favour of a person suspected of terrorist links, the issue ceases to be one of private criminality and assumes larger public significance.”

Petitioner Must Face Trial:

The Court therefore dismissed the petition seeking to quash the charge sheet. It held that, at this stage, there is enough material to make the petitioner face trial and prove his innocence in accordance with law.

The Court also directed that the police constable who approved the police verification of the passport applications routed through the petitioner should also face judicial scrutiny.

Case details: Sri U.M. Haidar, Travel Agent, Mangalore v. State Public Prosecutor & Regional Passport Officer, Mangalore