Nahru vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:31416
1 MCRC-38303-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
th
ON THE 4 OF NOVEMBER, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 38303 of 2026
CNR No.: MPHC020315722026
NAHRU
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Palash Choudhary - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Sunit Kapoor, Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
ORDER
By way of this petition challenge is made to the order dated 17.06.2026,
passed by the learned Trial Court, whereby the learned Trial Court has refused to
grant permission to the petitioner for issuance of passport.
2. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that since the petitioner is
facing criminal proceedings, therefore, the passport would not be granted to him
unless he gets a permission from the concerned criminal Court. He has filed an
application for NOC for issuance of the passport before the learned Trial Court but
the learned Trial Court has erroneously rejected the application on the ground that
there is no document showing that the applicant is required to visit the foreign
countries in near future. Moreover, keeping in view the pendency of the serious
case of NDPS, no such permission can be issued to the applicant. However, the
passport is only for the purpose of identity of the person and there is no ground for
rejection of the application. On these grounds, counsel prays for rejection of the
impugned order and to grant him permission for issuance of passport.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARSHA DUBEY
Signing time: 06-Nov-26
6:09:28 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:31416
2 MCRC-38303-2026
3. Learned counsel for the Govt. Advocate has opposed the prayer and

prayed for its rejection.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. So far as the requirement of permission to issue passport to be taken from
the criminal Court is concerned, the relevant provisions under Section 6(2)(f) of
Passports Act 1967 is relevant, as per which there is a mandatory provision to
refuse issuance of passport or any travel document for visiting any foreign country
if there is pendency of an offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner
which is pending before a criminal Court.
6. This aforesaid provision was subjected to interpretation recently by the
Supreme Court in the case of Mahesh Kumar Agarwal v. Union of India, 2025
SCC OnLine SC 2887. The Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the provisions of
the Passports Act, 1967 so also the notification issued by the Central Government
dated 25.08.1993 whereby upon taking permission of the criminal Court, passport
can be issued to a citizen. In view of this notification dated 25.08.1993, the
criminal Courts are having jurisdiction to permit issuance of passport and the
passport shall be issued to a person for the tenure as specified by the criminal
Court in its order. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case held as under:
"8. From a conjoint reading of Sections 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the Passports
Act, a structured scheme emerges. Section 5 is the starting point. It
prescribes the manner in which an application for a passport is to be
made and requires the passport authority, subject to the other provisions
of the Act, to decide the application by issuing or refusing the passport
through a written order. Section 6 qualifies that power and sets out, in an
exhaustive manner, the grounds on which the passport authority shall
refuse to issue a passport or travel document. Sub-section (1) deals with
refusal of endorsements for particular countries. Sub-section (2) governs
refusal of issue itself and again begins with the words “subject to the
other provisions of this Act”. It obliges the authority to refuse issue
where any of the situations in clauses (a) to (i) are present, including the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARSHA DUBEY
Signing time: 06-Nov-26
6:09:28 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:31416
3 MCRC-38303-2026
pendency of criminal proceedings before a court in India under clause
(f). Section 7 then addresses the duration of a passport. It provides that a
passport shall continue in force for such period as may be prescribed,
but also permits the authority, for reasons to be communicated in writing
to the applicant, to issue a passport for a shorter period in an appropriate
case. Section 8 deals with the converse situation where a passport has
already been issued for a shorter period. It permits extension of such a
passport, but expressly states that the provisions of the Act shall apply to
such extension as they apply to the issue of the passport, thereby linking
an extension back to the same statutory conditions and limitations that
govern original issue under Sections 5 and 6.

9. Sections 9, 10 and 22 reinforce and complete this framework. Section
9 enables the Central Government, by rules, to prescribe the conditions
subject to which and the form in which a passport shall be issued or
renewed. It also permits, with prior approval of the Central Government,
the imposition of case-specific conditions in addition to the prescribed
ones. Section 10 operates at a later stage and deals with the life of a
passport after it has been issued. It empowers the passport authority, in
defined situations, to require production of the passport and to impound
or revoke it. One such situation, under Section 10(3)(e), is where
proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by
the holder are pending before a criminal court in India. Section 22 then
confers on the Central Government the power, where it considers it
necessary or expedient in the public interest, to exempt any person or
class of persons from the operation of specified provisions of the Act or
the Rules, subject to conditions. It is in exercise of this power that GSR
570(E) was issued, creating a controlled exemption from the bar in
Section 6(2)(f) in favour of persons facing criminal proceedings who
obtain permission from the concerned court and comply with the
conditions set out in that notification.
10. On a plain reading, GSR 570(E) does two things. First, it recognises
that persons facing criminal proceedings are not to be treated as
absolutely disentitled to a passport. Instead, it permits such persons to
obtain a passport, notwithstanding Section 6(2)(f), where the concerned
criminal court has applied its mind and passed an order in relation to
issuance or use of the passport and where the applicant furnishes an
undertaking to appear before the court as and when required. Secondly,
it structures the exercise of that exemption by tying the validity and use
of the passport to the terms of the court's order. Thus, where the court
specifies a period for which the passport is to be issued, the passport
authority must honour that period. Where the court does not stipulate
any period, the notification provides default rules, including issuance for
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARSHA DUBEY
Signing time: 06-Nov-26
6:09:28 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:31416
4 MCRC-38303-2026
a shorter period, ordinarily one year, in appropriate cases. 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.

11. The OM dated 10.10.2019 does not create a new regime. It reiterates
that GSR 570(E) must be “strictly applied”, explains the procedure
where criminal cases are pending and makes it clear that a “no objection
certificate” or permission from the criminal court, read with the
applicant's undertaking, may override an adverse police report with
reasons recorded by the Passport Officer. It also contemplates situations
where more than one court is dealing with the matter and indicates that
the orders of all such courts are to be read together. The OM is thus an
administrative restatement of the position under Section 6(2)(f), Section
22 and GSR 570(E), and cannot add to or cut down the exemption which
the notification itself grants."
7. From the aforesaid notification, it is clear that the passport shall be issued
to a person who is facing trial who produces NOC from the Court concerned. Thus,
there is primary restriction to get the passport issued without obtaining NOC from
the concerned Criminal Court. .
8. It is submitted by counsel for petitioner that at present he does not have
any plans to travel abroad and an undertaking was also given that in case if he
intends to go abroad, then he would seek prior permission from the Court.
9. The question that whether the petitioner upon getting a passport issued
would abscond or would not return back to India, and what is the purpose for
which he intends to visit a foreign country and whether the purpose is genuine or
not, has to be looked into as per the purpose assigned by the petitioner at the time
of seeking permission to leave India and visit a foreign country. Passport is
basically a document of identity, and its issuance could not have been withheld.
10. Upon consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, and in the
interest of justice, it is hereby found appropriate that the accused be granted a No
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARSHA DUBEY
Signing time: 06-Nov-26
6:09:28 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:31416
5 MCRC-38303-2026
Objection Certificate (NOC) for the purpose of obtaining a passport. However, to

ensure the continued presence of the accused during the course of proceedings and
to safeguard the administration of justice, it is directed that in the event the
accused intends to travel outside the country, he shall seek prior permission from
this Court. Such permission shall be granted only upon due application and subject
to such conditions as the Court may deem fit to impose.
11. Accordingly, the order dated 17.06.2025 passed by learned trial Court,
to the extent of denying NOC for issuance of passport is hereby set aside. The trial
Court is directed to issue 'NOC' to the petitioner for limited purpose of issuance of
passport.
12. With the aforesaid, petition stands disposed off.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)
JUDGE
VD

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARSHA DUBEY
Signing time: 06-Nov-26
6:09:28 PM