Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Rajasthan Single Bench of Justice Farjand Ali has directed the Regional Passport Officer to process and renew an accused petitioner’s passport for the full 10-year validity, finding that passport authorities cannot require prior permission from a criminal court merely because criminal proceedings are pending, particularly when those proceedings are stayed and there is no order restraining possession of a passport. The petitioner, facing allegations linked to an allegedly forged will, sought renewal after his application was not processed due to the pendency of the case. The Court said the statutory restriction is not automatic and is intended to ensure the accused remains amenable to criminal jurisdiction; any foreign travel would still require the criminal court’s permission.

The petitioner had earlier challenged the continuance of criminal proceedings by filing a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and further proceedings in the criminal case stood stayed qua him.

Also Read: ₹2 Crore Compensation For Alleged Faulty Haircut Unjustified: Supreme Court Sets Aside NCDRC Award, Directs ITC Maurya To Pay ₹25 Lakhs To Model

Upon applying for renewal of his passport, the Passport Authority raised an objection on account of pendency of the criminal case and sought clarification regarding its status. The petitioner contended that mere pendency of criminal proceedings did not require prior permission of the trial court for renewal, and that neither Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967 nor Notification No. G.S.R. 570(E) dated 25.08.1993 mandated such permission in the absence of any restraint order.

The respondents submitted that pendency of criminal proceedings was a relevant consideration under the Passports Act and that the petitioner ought to have approached the criminal court before seeking renewal.

The Court observed that “In the constitutional framework, the freedom to move and to travel, though subject to regulation by law, forms an integral facet of personal liberty protected under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. While such freedom is not absolute, any regulatory restraint must remain grounded in law and proportionate to the object sought to be achieved, and cannot be permitted to assume the character of a punitive or indefinite restriction in the absence of adjudicated guilt.”

While examining Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967, the Court recorded that “Section 6(2)(f) does not contemplate an absolute or automatic embargo on issuance or renewal of a passport solely on account of pendency of criminal proceedings.”

Referring to the Supreme Court decision in Mahesh Kumar Agarwal v. Union of India & Anr., the Court reproduced the observation: “What the notification does not do is to create a new substantive bar beyond Section 6(2)(f), or to insist that the criminal court must, in every case, grant a prior blanket permission to ‘depart from India’ for specified dates as a jurisdictional precondition to the very issue or re-issue of a passport.”

The Court further recorded the Supreme Court’s statement: “The legitimate purpose behind Section 6(2)(f) and Section 10(3)(e) is to ensure that a person facing criminal proceedings remains amenable to the jurisdiction of the criminal court.”

On the distinction between possession of a passport and travel abroad, the Court noted: “It is important to keep distinct the possession of a valid passport and the act of travelling abroad… Whether a person who is on bail or facing trial may actually leave the country is a matter for the criminal court.”

The Court also recorded: “The passport authority is not required, at the renewal stage, to demand a schedule of future journeys or visas which may not yet exist.”

With respect to the effect of stay of proceedings, the Court observed that “withholding renewal of the petitioner’s passport merely on the ground that the criminal proceedings have not been disposed of would neither advance the object of the statute nor satisfy the requirement of proportionality.”

The Court further held: “Viewed in this backdrop, the contention that the petitioner was required to approach the criminal court for permission or a 'no objection' even at the stage of renewal, in the absence of any restraint order, cannot be accepted. Such insistence would amount to importing a requirement not contemplated either by the statute or by the exemption notification.”

Also Read: Interim Maintenance Is Discretionary, Temporary Relief And Not A Final Determination Of Entitlement: Rajasthan High Court Refuses To Enhance ₹40K Interim Maintenance

The Court directed that “The petitioner shall place a copy of this order before the concerned Regional Passport Officer, who shall process and renew the petitioner’s passport for the full standard validity period of ten years, subject to fulfillment of statutory requirements and in accordance with law. “Renewal of the passport shall not, by itself, entitle the petitioner to travel abroad. Prior permission of the competent criminal court shall be obtained before any such travel.”

“This order is confined to the facts of the present case and shall not be construed as limiting the jurisdiction of the criminal court to impose appropriate conditions in accordance with law.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Himanshu Ranjan Singh Bhati

For the Respondents: Ms. Pintoo Pareek; Mr. N.S. Chandawat, DyGA

Case Title: Pradeep Kumar Sarwogi v. Union of India & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2026:RJ-JD:5365
Case Number: S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 2358/2025
Bench: Justice Farjand Ali