Trial Court, Not Passport Authority, Decides Accused Facing Criminal Proceedings Has Right To Travel Abroad; Gujarat High Court Allows Plea And Orders Passport Issuance
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Gujarat Single Bench of Justice Aniruddha P. Mayee directed the passport authorities to issue a passport to an applicant facing pending criminal proceedings for a period of 10 years, holding that the passport office cannot decide whether such an accused has a “right to travel abroad”. The Court said permission to travel outside India, and any conditions attached to that permission, fall within the jurisdiction of the trial court when an application is made for travel abroad.
The petition was instituted seeking a direction to the competent authorities to issue a fresh passport to the petitioner. The petitioner contended that an FIR had been registered alleging offences under the Indian Penal Code. Upon completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer filed a B-Summary report before the Magistrate Court stating that no offence was made out. The Magistrate Court accepted the B-Summary report by a judicial order. Subsequently, the said acceptance order was challenged before the District and Sessions Court through a criminal revision application, which was allowed. Thereafter, a co-accused approached the High Court by filing a separate criminal application, wherein notice was issued and the matter remained pending.
The petitioner submitted that despite the above circumstances, he intended to travel abroad and sought issuance of a passport. The respondent authorities opposed the petition on the ground that no application for passport issuance had been made and that persons facing criminal proceedings are required to obtain permission from the concerned court before departing from India.
The dispute before the Court concerned whether passport authorities could restrict or deny issuance of a passport solely due to pending criminal proceedings, in light of statutory provisions under the Passports Act, 1967 and the relevant Government notification.
The Court examined the statutory framework governing issuance of passports where criminal proceedings are pending. It reproduced the Central Government Notification dated 25.08.1993 issued under the Passports Act, 1967, noting that it provides an exemption subject to conditions. The Court recorded that “Clause (ii) thereof states that if there is no period specified in the order passed by the Trial Court for issuance of passport, the passport shall be issued for a period of 1 year.” It further noted that “the said Notification also specifies in Clause (i) that if the Court specifies the period for which the passport has to be issued, then the passport shall be issued for such a specified period.”
The Court referred to guidelines laid down by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court concerning renewal and issuance of passports in cases involving criminal proceedings. While noting that the decision was not binding, the Court observed that it carried persuasive value and that “the ratio of the said judgment squarely applies in the facts and circumstances of the present case.”
The Court further recorded that the Central Government had exercised its powers under Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act by issuing the notification and that ambiguities arising from the Act, Rules, and notification had been clarified by the Bombay High Court. It observed that “the passport authorities do not have any authority to decide whether the accused has a right to travel abroad and such authority is only vested in the Trial Court.”
The Court also stated that “the directions issued by the Bombay High Court are binding upon the passport authorities to issue the passport for a period of 10 years as per the Act and the Rules.”
The Court directed the respondent authorities “to issue the passport of the petitioner for a period of 10 years.” It clarified that “if the petitioner has to undertake any travel abroad, he will have to make appropriate application to the appropriate Court seeking permission to travel abroad, which shall impose such conditions as it deems fit and proper. If any application for issuance of the passport is made by the petitioner, the same be decided expeditiously within a period of 4 weeks from the date of such application.”
With these directions, the petition was allowed and disposed of, with no order as to costs.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Mr. Dharmesh R. Patel, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Pradip D. Bhate, Advocate
Case Title: Dhaval Sureshbhai Makwana v. State of Gujarat & Anr.
Neutral Citation: 2026: GUJHC:705
Case Number: Special Civil Application No. 28 of 2026
Bench: Justice Aniruddha P. Mayee
