Full Judgment Text
2026:BHC-AS:20585-DB
SUPRIYA/SAGAR WPST-138-2025.doc
S
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION (STAMP) NO. 138 OF 2025
1. Fahim Arshad Mohammed Yusuf Ansari
Age : 51 years,
R/at: Dream Height Sonaji Nagar,
Opp. Mittal Ground,
Amrut Nagar, Mumbai, Thane 400 612
… Petitioner
V/s.
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Mumbra Police Station,
Thane, Maharashtra 400 612.
2. Officer-in-Charge,
Mumbra Police Station
Thane, 400612
3. Commissioner of Police Office, Thane
Near Kalawa Bridge,
Thane, 400601.
… Respondents
______________________
Ms. Payoshi Roy a/w Mr. Ulkesh Gangurde i/b Madhvi Gomathieswaran
Advocates for the Petitioner.
Smt. M. M. Deshmukh, Acting Public Prosecutor a/w Mr. Amit A. Palkar, A.P.P.
for the Respondent-State.
Mr. Sudhakar Khot, P.I. Special Branch, Thane City.
______________________
1/9
::: Uploaded on - 30/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 30/04/2026 12:31:10 :::
SUPRIYA/SAGAR WPST-138-2025.doc
CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND
RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, JJ.
th
RESERVED ON : 9 DECEMBER 2025.
th
PRONOUNCED ON : 29 APRIL 2026.
JUDGMENT [Per: RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, J] :-
1) By the present Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, the Petitioner seeks a direction to grant to the Petitioner a Police
Clearance Certificate, for the purposes of securing Public Service Vehicle
Badge (PSV), which is required to drive an auto rickshaw for commercial
purposes. The Petitioner further seeks a direction that, the Petitioner’s arrest
and trial in Sessions Case No. 175 of 2009 should not be used as ground to
bar him from availing public amenities and opportunities.
2) Heard Ms. Payoshi Roy, learned Advocate for the Petitioner, Smt.
M. M. Deshmukh, Acting Public Prosecutor a/w Mr. Amit A. Palkar, A.P.P. for
the Respondent-State. Perused the record.
3) It is the case of the Petitioner that, the Police Clearance Certificate
has been refused to him on stale and untenable grounds. The Petitioner was
st
arrested on 1 February 2008 in connection with C.R. No. 210 of 2008,
registered with the Rampur Police Station, Uttar Pradesh for the offences
punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 200, 121, 121-A of the Indian
Penal Code. Pursuant to a trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
2/9
::: Uploaded on - 30/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 30/04/2026 12:31:10 :::
SUPRIYA/SAGAR WPST-138-2025.doc
Rampur was pleased to convict the Petitioner in Sessions Case No. 211 of
2008. The Petitioner was sentenced to undergo imprisonment of 10 years.
th
That, on 5 November 2019, the Petitioner was released from custody after
completing his sentence in Sessions Case No. 211 of 2008.
4) That, while the Petitioner was in custody, he was arrested in
December 2008 in connection with C.R. No. 55/08 registered with the Yellow
Gate Police Station, which was one of the 12 complaints lodged in connection
th
with the terrorist attack that took place in the Taj Hotel in Mumbai on 26
th
November 2008. The learned Sessions Judge, Mumbai vide Order dated 6
May 2010 in Sessions Case No. 175 of 2009 acquitted the Petitioner. The said
Order of acquittal has been upheld by the Bombay High Court in Criminal
Appeal No. 606 of 2010 and further confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
th
by its Order dated 29 August 2012 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1961 of
2011.
5) The learned Advocate for the Petitioner submits that, the
petitioner had secured a job in a printing press at Byculla where he worked in
2020. That, during the Covid Pandemic the Petitioner worked as delivery
executive for Zomato. That, the Petitioner’s family comprises of his wife and
daughter. That, the Petitioner is required to earn his livelihood. That, as the
Petitioner was unable to meet his daily expenses with his income, working at
the printing press, he applied for a three wheeler rickshaw license. The license
th th
was issued on 19 January 2024. On 18 May 2024, the Petitioner filed online
3/9
::: Uploaded on - 30/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 30/04/2026 12:31:10 :::
SUPRIYA/SAGAR WPST-138-2025.doc
Application for obtaining Police Clearance Certificate with the Mumbra Police
Station, which is mandatory in order to obtain Public Service Vehicle Badge
(PSV). That, without the PSV badge one cannot ply auto rickshaw for
commercial purposes. As the Police Clearance Certificate was not issued, the
Petitioner filed a RTI application requesting for update and the status of his
th th
application dated 18 May 2024. That, by letter dated 13 August 2024, the
Petitioner was informed that, as he was a member of Lashkar-e-Taiba
Sanghatana, the certificate was not issued. It is this refusal that Petitioner
seeks to challenge before this Court.
5.1) Learned Advocate for the Petitioner submits that, the Petitioner
has already served the sentence awarded by the learned Sessions Court,
Rampur in Sessions Case No. 211 of 2008. That, the Petitioner has undergone
th
and suffered the entire sentence awarded to him and was released on 5
November 2019 after undergoing the sentence period of 10 years. As regards
the Sessions Case No. 175 of 2009, the Petitioner has been acquitted and the
acquittal has been confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. That, due to the
non issuance of PSV badge, the Petitioner is unable to gainfully employ
himself post the conviction. That, the action of the state administration is
unjust and untenable. The learned Advocate appearing for the Petitioner
would submit that, in view of the aforesaid facts the petition be allowed.
5.2) Learned Acting Public Prosecutor would submit that, the
Petitioner has multiple cases/offences registered in his name and has been
4/9
::: Uploaded on - 30/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 30/04/2026 12:31:10 :::
SUPRIYA/SAGAR WPST-138-2025.doc
convicted in the past and sentenced for 10 years imprisonment in the Rampur
CRPF camp grenade attack case. That, in the said case seven CRPF persons
and one civilian were mercilessly killed. That, the Petitioner was accused in
2008 Mumbai terrorist attack, though acquitted, the said acquittal is based on
the principle of “benefit of doubt” which was given to the Petitioner. In the
said case, it was alleged that the Petitioner is the member of LeT (Lashkar e
Taiba) which is a banned organization. That, the policy guidelines governing
the Police Character Verification clearly mandate that an Applicant with the
serious criminal background of a prior conviction must be issued an adverse
remark in the verification report. That, this requirement is applied uniformly.
That, after considering the intelligence reports and related material the
Petitioner was not granted clearance for use of the auto rickshaw PSV badge
for driving an auto on commercial basis. Learned A.P.P. tendered a chart
indicating cases where Character verification is conducted in respect of the
government jobs and private jobs. The said chart has been provided to the
learned Advocate for the Petitioner. That, as per the guidelines, if Police
Clearance Verification is sought, it is mandatory for the Authorities to
mentioned the previous criminal record of the Applicant in case of serious
crimes. Learned A.P.P. submitted that, the intelligence agencies reports are
adverse to the Petitioner and considering the nature of the allegations and the
offences for which the Petitioner was prosecuted the Police clearance has been
rejected. That, the intelligence reports are adverse and against the Petitioner.
5/9
::: Uploaded on - 30/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 30/04/2026 12:31:10 :::
SUPRIYA/SAGAR WPST-138-2025.doc
Learned A.P.P. submitted that, it would be open for the Petitioner to take
private employment as was previously taken up by him. That, it would be
open for the Petitioner to take up stationary jobs.
5.3) Learned A.P.P. submitted a confidential note containing certain
sensitive information/official intelligence communication in respect of the
Petitioner and the reasons which were considered by the Authorities. Based on
the said instructions, Police Clearance Certificate was refused.
6) We have heard the parties and perused the record including the
nd
Affidavit dated 2 April 2025 filed by the Assistant Commissioner of Police.
From the record it appears that, considering the nature of the offences and the
crimes in which the Petitioner was involved and role as assigned to the
Petitioner “providing ancillary logistical support” the Police Authorities are
apprehensive and have therefore as a precautionary measure refused the
police clearance to the Petitioner to ply an auto rickshaw on the commercial
basis. The offences involved, were extremely serious in nature and a threat to
the security of the country. The Police Authorities, based on the intelligence
reports have considered the Petitioner as a high potential risk. The Petitioner,
considering the role assigned to him in the crimes has been considered a high
risk for certain jobs including that of plying of the commercial auto rickshaw
within PSV badge.
7) We have been informed that, the issuance of police character
verification certificate to any person seeking recruitment in a government
6/9
::: Uploaded on - 30/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 30/04/2026 12:31:10 :::
SUPRIYA/SAGAR WPST-138-2025.doc
services, it is mandated that in cases where there is a serious criminal
background or prior convictions, the same must be issued with an adverse
remark in the verification report. The said requirement appears to be applied
uniformly. The present Petitioner applied for a PSV badge. The inclusion of the
adverse remark is mandatory as a consequence of the Petitioners antecedents,
role assigned and nature of crimes. The adverse report or the refusal to grant
Police Clearance Certificate appears to be based on the policy decision
wherein in serious crimes an adverse remark is issued. In the present case, the
verification process was conducted in accordance with the guidelines and after
following the required diligence in as much as the Petitioner records checked
thoroughly and the decision has been made based on the verified criminal
history. Considering the antecedent’s and past history of the Petitioner i.e.
attack on CRPF officials with grenade and the alleged connections with LeT
(Lashkar-e-Taiba) and role assigned to the Petitioner in 2008 Mumbai
Attacks, the said police clearance certificate has been refused.
8) We have considered the report of intelligence/say of the
government agencies. The report would prima facie indicate that considering
the nature of the allegations made against the Petitioner and the cases in
which the Petitioner was involved i.e. attack on CRPF officials with grenade
and the alleged connections with LeT (Lashkar-e-Taiba) the intelligence
agencies are of the opinion that the possibility of the Petitioner indulging in
the same or in similar activity cannot be ruled out. The learned A.P.P. has
7/9
::: Uploaded on - 30/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 30/04/2026 12:31:10 :::
SUPRIYA/SAGAR WPST-138-2025.doc
specifically referred to the role assigned to the Petitioner in the Mumbai
Attacks. We find no reason to differ with the opinion of the Government
Authorities nor can any fault be found with it. According to us, prospects of
employment of the Petitioner are only restricted in the backdrop of the
criminal antecedents in a reasonable manner and in the larger interest of
public safety and national security. It is not the case that, the Petitioner is left
without any avenues of employment. We note that the Petitioner’s
employment avenues/opportunities only stand curtailed to exclude certain
jobs.
9) Perusal of the note would indicate that, considering the criminal
antecedents and allegations and role attributed to the Petitioner in the
previous criminal proceedings/matters the Authorities have rightly given an
adverse police clearance for issuance for the PSV badge. The Petitioner is free
to avail of an alternate employment. The said restriction on the employment
of the Petitioner or right to earn livelihood or carry out business and trade,
according to us is a reasonable restriction. The said restriction is being
imposed by the Authorities after considering the record, the antecedents and
more importantly in the larger interest of the general public and society. It is
not the case that, the Petitioner is left with no alternative or does not have any
other option to earn a livelihood. We are of the opinion that the Respondent
Authorities are right in there contention when they restrict the employment
opportunities/opportunities to earn a livelihood in the larger interest of the
8/9
::: Uploaded on - 30/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 30/04/2026 12:31:10 :::
SUPRIYA/SAGAR WPST-138-2025.doc
society and general public.
10) Considering the peculiar facts of the present case and keeping in
mind the question of security, we are of the opinion that Authorities have
rightly refused the Police Clearance Certificate in respect of the (PSV) badge
for driving the auto rickshaw commercially to the Petitioner.
11) In view thereof, the petition is dismissed.
(RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, J.) (A. S. GADKARI, J.)
9/9
::: Uploaded on - 30/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 30/04/2026 12:31:10 :::