Sagar Pradeep Oak vs State Of Maharashtra

2026:BHC-AS:20891-DB
Sagar 1 Final Passport 21-04-26.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1788 OF 2025
Sagar Pradeep Oak
Age about 43 years, Occ-Service,
Having Address at: 3804 Tower
6 Crescent Bay, Jerbai Wadia Road,
Near Mahatma Phule Education Society,
Bhoiwada, Mumbai, Mumbai City,
Maharashtra, 400012 … Petitioner
V/s.
1. State of Maharashtra,
By and through office of the
Government Pleader Bombay
High Court, Cr. A.J. Bombay
Through, Pali Police Station
Raigad Maharashtra
C.R. No. 02/2010
2. Union of India
Through the Regional Passport
Authority of India, Having Office
at Mumbai, Maharashtra … Respondents
______________________
Mr. Niranjan Mundargi, Counsel a/w Ms. Keral Mehta, Mr. Tushar Ajinkya,
Mr. Sahil Bijliwala, Adv. Bhavai Shah i/b ThinkLaw Advocates for Petitioner.
Mr. Amit A. Palkar, A.P.P. for the State.
Ms. Neha Patil, SPP for Respondent No. 2.
______________________
WITH
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 5554 OF 2025
Brahma Sheo Bharat Mall
Age 59 years, Occ-Service,
R/a. Flat No. 701, Tower-10,
1/56
::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 11/05/2026 00:05:15 :::

Sagar 2 Final Passport 21-04-26.docx
Sea Breeze, Near Palm Beach
Road, Sector 16, Nerul-16
Nerul, Pin Code - 400706 … Petitioner
V/s.
1. The State of Maharashtra,
(At the instance of Nerul Police Station)
2. The Passport Authority of India
Having office at Plot No. C-45
G Block, Videsh Bhavan,
Bandra-Kurla Complex
Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. … Respondents
______________________
Ms. Yugandhara Khanvilkar a/w Ms. Swapna Kode, Ms. Divya kakkar,
Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. Amit A. Palkar, A.P.P. for the State.
Ms. Manisha Jagtap, Adv. for Respondent No. 2.
______________________
WITH
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 5555 OF 2025
Brahma Sheo Bharat Mall
Age 59 years, Occ-Service,
R/o. Flat No. 701, Tower-10,
Sea Breeze, Near Palm Beach
Road, Sector 16, Nerul-16
Nerul, Pin Code - 400706 … Petitioner
V/s.
1. The State of Maharashtra,
(At the instance of Nerul Police Station)
2. The Passport Authority of India
Having office at Plot No. C-45
G Block, Videsh Bhavan,
2/56
::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 11/05/2026 00:05:15 :::

Sagar 3 Final Passport 21-04-26.docx
Bandra-Kurla Complex
Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. … Respondents
______________________
Ms. Swapna Kode a/w Ms. Yugandhara Khanvilkar, Ms. Divya Kakkar,
Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. Ajay Patil, A.P.P. for the State.
Ms. Manisha Jagtap, Adv. for Respondent No. 2.
______________________

JUDGMENT:- [Per : RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, J]

Agarwal Vs. Union of India & Anr reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2887
has observed that:-
“2. Liberty, in our constitutional scheme, is not a gift of the
State but its first obligation. The freedom of a citizen to move, to
travel, to pursue livelihood and opportunity, subject to law, is an
essential part of the guarantee under Article 21of the Constitution
of India. The State may, where statute so provides, regulate or
restrain that freedom in the interests of justice, security or public
order but such restraint must be narrowly confined to what is
necessary, proportionate to the object sought to be achieved, and
clearly anchored in law. When procedural safeguards are converted
into rigid barriers, or temporary disabilities are allowed to harden
into indefinite exclusions, the balance between the power of the
State and the dignity of the individual is disturbed, and the
promise of the Constitution is put at risk.”
3/56
::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 11/05/2026 00:05:15 :::

Sagar 4 Final Passport 21-04-26.docx

make certain suggestions in the form of guidelines for renewal/re-issue of
Passports to the citizens of India against whom criminal proceedings have
been filed and are pending. In the recent past, we have come across with
various matters, wherein the citizens by way of an application approach the
concerned Court, in whose jurisdiction the criminal action/prosecution is
initiated, to seek a NOC/permission to renew the passport. This is,
irrespective of the fact whether cognizance is taken or not, the nature of
offence alleged, the seriousness and gravity of the offence or the role/overt
act assigned to the individual accused. We have noticed that, many a times
the criminal proceedings are only filed, without notice or summons issued.
In some cases even the cognizance of the criminal complaint/proceeding is
not taken by the concerned criminal Court still the applicants/accused are
required to make the application for NOC/permission to the concerned
Court. This entails in unnecessary delay and inconvenience to the
concerned Applicant and consumes significant judicial time of the Court.

India, the Petitioners have inter alia sought/prayed for the following reliefs-

4/56
::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 11/05/2026 00:05:15 :::

Sagar 5 Final Passport 21-04-26.docx
the passports in a time bound manner

Amit Palkar, APP in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1788 of 2025 and Criminal
Writ Petition No. 5554 of 2025 for Respondent No.1, Mr. Ajay Patil, APP in

No.2 in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1788 of 2025 and Ms. Manisha Jagtap
for Respondent No. 2 in Criminal Writ Petition No. 5554 of 2025 and
Criminal Writ Petition No. 5555 of 2025. Perused the entire record.

Petitioner is an accused in RCC No. 11 of 2012 pending on the file of
learned J.M.F.C., Pali, Taluka Sudhagad, District Raigad, filed under
Sections 420, 406 and 403 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
5.1) Petitioner, therein filed an Application below Exh-88 before the
learned J.M.F.C., Pali, Taluka-Sudhagad, District-Raigad seeking a no
objection for renewal of his passport as the Respondent No.2 i.e. the
Regional Passport Authority vide its communication/Acknowledgment letter

on the ground that, permission/NOC of the Court is not required for
5/56
::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 11/05/2026 00:05:15 :::

Sagar 6 Final Passport 21-04-26.docx
renewal of a passport and that, it is the right of the person to get renewed
his existing passport. It is observed that, if the Petitioner is traveling abroad,
then the permission/order of the Court would be required for the renewal
of the passport. The Trial Court, relied upon the order of this Court passed

5.2) That, the Petitioner requires his passport to be renewed for the
purposes of securing his employment. Due to the non-renewal of the
passport, the Petitioners ability to travel for work is restricted, which
adversely affects the Petitioners job prospects and security, thereby there is
a threat to his livelihood. In the aforenoted circumstances, the Petitioner
prayed that the required NOC be issued and the Respondent No.2 be
directed to renew the Petitioners Passport for a period of 10 years, subject
to the Petitioner satisfying the requirements under the Passport Act and
rules thereunder.

Summons Warrant Case No.523 of 2018 and Summons Warrant Case No.

Chief Judicial Magistrate Court at Andheri, Mumbai, under Sections 405,
406, 420, 34 read with 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The cases have
6/56
::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 11/05/2026 00:05:15 :::

Sagar 7 Final Passport 21-04-26.docx
been filed by M/s Proactive Crewing & Offshore Services Pvt Ltd and M/s
Advent Marine and Shipping Services Pvt Ltd respectively. That, the
Petitioners have not been served with any summons or the complaint in any
manner and/or form whatsoever.
6.1) That, the Petitioners are permanent residents of India and both
work in Cyprus. That, the Petitioners Alien Registration card, (ARC) which

requirement that, the applications for renewal of ARC or work visa were to
be submitted three months prior to the expiry i.e renewal applications were

May 2026. Therefore, the Petitioners applied for renewal of ARC/work visa
in Cyprus.

be valid for over 6 months from the date of entry. As the Petitioners
passport was nearing expiry, the Petitioners submitted their passports for

and became aware of the criminal proceedings filed against them. That, the
Petitioners now do not have a passport in hand.

Chief Judicial Magistrate Court at Andheri, Mumbai seeking grant of
7/56
::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 11/05/2026 00:05:15 :::

Sagar 8 Final Passport 21-04-26.docx
permission to renew the passports. That, no orders have been passed
thereon till date. That, the criminal prosecution against the Petitioners are
filed in the year 2018. That, the matters are still at the stage of verification
and cognizance of the same is not yet been taken.
6.5) That, as the deadline for applying for renewal of passports lapsed
rd
on 23 August 2025, the employer reminded the Petitioners to initiate the
required procedure. That, though the criminal cases are of the year 2018,
the police had granted a police clearance certificate in the year 2022. That,
in the year 2022, no objection was taken. The Petitioners have regularly
and extensively travelled during the said period 2018 to 2022.
rd
6.6) That, on 23 August 2025, the Petitioner’s applications of renewal
of ARC should have been submitted, but could not be submitted as the
petitioners passports were not issued. That, it is the imperative for
Petitioner to get the Passport renewed.
6.7) That, no cognizance of the criminal matter has been taken. That,
th
the Petitioners have applied for permission on 19 August 2025. That, the
learned trial court orally was opined that as the cognizance has not been
taken of the criminal proceedings, no permission was required. The
Petitioners have not got a hearing/reliefs in the matter.
6.8) That, the Petitioners require the renewal for the purposes of their
employment and due to the non-renewal of the passports, the Petitioners
8/56
::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 11/05/2026 00:05:15 :::

Sagar 9 Final Passport 21-04-26.docx
ability to travel for work is restricted, which adversely affects the petitioners
job prospects and security, and thereby a threat to their livelihood.

renewal of the passports.

Passport Act 1967 are considered along with the relevant judgments passed
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court in cases seeking
reissue/renewal of passport.

the issue of passports and travel documents, to regulate the departure from
India of Citizens of India and other persons and for matters incidental or
ancillary thereto. Section 4 of the said Act provides for different
types/classes of passports (ordinary, official and diplomatic) and travel
documents (emergency certificate and certificate of identity) which may be
issued under the said Act. Section 5 (1), 5(1A) and 5(2) of the said Act
provide for applications for passports, travel documents and the manner in
which the applications are to be made and the procedure for the issue of a
passport or travel document.
9) Under section 5(2) of the said Act, the passport authority, after
making an inquiry may either issue a passport under section 5(2)(a) or 5(2)
(b) or refuse to issue a passport under section 5(2)(c). Section 5(3) of the
9/56
::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 11/05/2026 00:05:15 :::

Sagar 10 Final Passport 21-04-26.docx
said Act, provides that, brief reasons for the refusal of issuing the passport
or travel document or issuing the passport under section 5(2) (b) or 5 (2)
(c) shall be made in writing, and provided to the applicant, on demand,
unless the passport authority is of the opinion that, it will not be in the
interest of the sovereignty, integrity, security of India or the friendly
relations of India with any other country or in the interest of general public
to furnish the reasons.
10) Section 6(1) of the said Act provides for the grounds for refusal
to make an endorsement for visiting any foreign country under clause (b)
or clause (c) of sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the said Act in respect of the
application, made on any one or more of the following grounds and no
other, namely:-
(a) That, the applicant may engage in activities in such country
which are prejudicial sovereignty and integrity of India;
(b) the presence of such an applicant in such a country may or is
likely to be detrimental to security of India;
(c) That, the presence of the applicant in such a country may or
likely to prejudice the friendly relations of India with that or any
other country; or that
(d) in the opinion of Central Government the presence of the
applicant in such a country is not a public interest.
10/56
::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 11/05/2026 00:05:15 :::

Sagar 11 Final Passport 21-04-26.docx
11) Section 6(2) of the said Act provides that, subject to the other
provisions of the Act, the passport authority shall refuse to issue a passport
or travel document under clause 5(2)(c), on any one or more on the
grounds specified therein and on no other ground. Under clause 6(2) the
following grounds are specifically mentioned i.e (a) the applicant is not a
citizen of India; (b) the applicant may or is likely to engage in activities
outside India which are prejudicial to the sovereignty and integrity of
India; (c) the departure of applicant from India may or is likely to be
detrimental to the security of India; (d) the presence of the applicant
outside India may or is likely to prejudice the friendly relations of India
with the foreign country; (e) the applicant at any time during the period of
5 years immediately preceding the date of application has been convicted
by a Court in India for an offence involving moral turpitude and sentence in
respect thereof to imprisonment for not less than 2 years; (f) proceedings in
respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant are
pending before the criminal court; (g) a warrant or summons for
appearance has been issued against the applicant or an Order prohibiting
the departure of applicant from India has been passed by a Court; (h) the
applicant has been repatriated and has not reimbursed the expenditure
which has been incurred in connection therewith; (i) in the opinion of
Central government the issue of the passport or travel documents to the
applicant is not in public interest.
11/56
::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 11/05/2026 00:05:15 :::

Sagar 12 Final Passport 21-04-26.docx
12) For the purposes of present case, section 6(2) (e) and 6(2)(f)
are relevant.
Under Section 6(2) (e) the passport authority has the power to refuse
the application for issuance of passport if the applicant at any time during
the period of 5 years immediately preceding the date of the application has
been convicted by a Court for an offence involving moral turpitude and
sentenced for a term of imprisonment for not less than 2 years. In other
words, if the order of conviction and sentence, is passed more than 5 years
before immediately preceding the date of application or being within a
period of 5 years is for a sentence of imprisonment of less than 2 years,
then, in that event the reasons for refusal under section 6(2)(e) would not
be applicable and available. Further, the section provides that the offence
should be a one involving moral turpitude. Under Section 6(2), the other
reason specified and available for the passport authority, to refuse an
application under Section 5(2)(c) is that a proceeding in respect of an
offence is alleged to have been committed by applicant is pending before a
criminal court. In our opinion, the grounds for refusal of a passport are
restricted, keeping in mind that the right to travel is an essential and
integral part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India. Further more, it is pertinent to note that, the power
and grounds for refusal are again limited and specifically being made
subject to the other provisions, including section 22 and the notifications
12/56
::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 11/05/2026 00:05:15 :::

Sagar 13 Final Passport 21-04-26.docx
issued, in public interest, under section 22 of the said Act. The embargo
under Section 6(2)(f) of the said Act is for sure diluted and watered down
st
by the Notification dated 25 August 1993 and Office Memorandum dated
th
10 October 2019. The effect of the said notification and office
memorandum is referred to, discussed and considered by us in some details
hereinafter.
13) Section 7 of the said Act provides for duration of travel
document. Under section 7 of the said Act, a passport or travel document
shall unless revoked earlier continue to be in force and valid for such period
as may be prescribed in the said passport. The proviso to section 7,
stipulates that, the passport or travel document may be issued for shorter
period then the prescribed periods if the applicant so desires, or if the
passport authority considers it necessary to do so, for the reasons, which are
to be communicated in writing to the applicant. Section 8 provides for
extension of the period of the passport when the passport is issued for a
shorter period than the prescribed period under Section 7 of the said Act.
Any variation in the period or duration of the passport or travel document
is within the authority and power of the passport authorities under the said
Act.
14) Section 10 provides for variation, impounding and revocation
of passports and travel documents. Section 10(1) provides for variation or
13/56
::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 11/05/2026 00:05:15 :::

Sagar 14 Final Passport 21-04-26.docx
cancellation of any endorsement on a passport or travel document having
regard to section 6(1) or any notification issued under Section 19 of the
said Act. The Passport Authority, may with the previous approval of the
Central Government, vary or cancel conditions, other than the prescribed
conditions subject to which the Passport or travel document is issued. The
passport authorities under section 10 of the said Act, have the power to call
upon the holder of the passport or travel document, after notice, to deliver
the passport or travel document to the said authority. Under section 10(2)
passport authority, on an application of the holder of a passport or travel
document with the previous approval of the Central Government has power
to vary or cancel the condition of the passport or travel document. Under
section 10(3) of the said Act, the passport authority has the power to
impound, cause to be impounded or revoke the passport or travel
document, if the authority is satisfied that, the holder of the passport is in
wrongful possession thereof or that the same was obtained by suppression
of material information or on wrong information provided by the holder of
the passport or travel document or any other person on his behalf. The
passport or travel document can also be impounded or revoked in the
interest of sovereignty, integrity, security of India and the friendly relation
of India with other countries or in the interest of general public. The
passport or travel document can further also be revoked or impounded if,
the holder of the passport or travel document has, at any time after the
14/56
::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 11/05/2026 00:05:15 :::

Sagar 15 Final Passport 21-04-26.docx
issue of the passport or travel document, been convicted for an offence
involving moral turpitude and sentenced in respect thereof to imprisonment
not less than two years or if criminal proceedings are pending before a
criminal Court in India against the holder of the said passport or travel
document. The passport or travel document can also be impounded or
revoked, if the conditions of the passport or travel document are contravene
or if the holder has not comply with the notice issued under Section 10 (1)
of the said Act. The passport or travel document may be impounded or
revoked, if the Passport authority is satisfied that a warrant or summons for
appearance or warrant of arrest or prohibitory orders restraining departure
from India have been made by a Court.
15) Section 10(5) of the said Act, provides that, if any order is
made under Section 10(1) or 10(3) of the said Act, the passport authority is
to record reasons in writing and provide a brief statement of the reasons to
the holder on the passport or travel document on demand, unless the
Passport Authorities is of the opinion that, it is not in the interest of
sovereignty, integrity, security, friendly relation of India with foreign country
or in the interest of general public to do so.
16) Under Section 10(7) of the said Act, the court convicting the
holder of passport or travel document of any offence under the said act or
rules made thereunder has the power to revoke the passport or travel
15/56
::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 11/05/2026 00:05:15 :::

Sagar 16 Final Passport 21-04-26.docx
document. The said revocation shall become void if the conviction is set
aside on appeal or otherwise. Under Section 10 (8) of the said Act, the
Appellate Court or the High Court when exercising its power of revision
may also make an order of revocation as provided under Section 10(7) of
the said Act. Sections 10(7) and 10(8) are the only provisions of the said
Act which confer the authority on the court to revoke the passport under
the conditions stipulated therein i.e. for any offence under the said Act or
rules made thereunder. On an order revocation being passed, the holder,
without any delay, is bound to surrender the passport or travel document to
the concerned authority.
17) Section 10 (A) of the said Act, provides that, without prejudice
to the generality of the provisions contained in section 10 of the said Act, if
the Central Government or any designated officer is satisfied that the
passport or the travel document is likely to be impounded or caused to be
impounded or revoked under section 10(3)(c) and it is necessary in public
interest to do so, it or he may with immediate effect order suspension of the
document or pass such an order so as to make the passport or travel
document invalid with immediate effect.
18) Under section 22 of the said Act, if the Central Government is
of the opinion that, it is necessary or expedient in public interest, it may, by
a notification in the official gazette, exempt any person or class of persons
16/56
::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 11/05/2026 00:05:15 :::

Sagar 17 Final Passport 21-04-26.docx
from the operation of all or any of the provisions of the said Act or rules
made thereunder and may if required cancel any such notification and
again subject, by a like notification, the person or class of persons to the
operation of such provisions. Clearly, the notifications, under Section 22 of
the said Act are issued in public interest, to assist and in aid and for the
benefit of the general public/society or to ensure implementation of
international conventions or for confirming to international practice and
usage.
19) Rule 12 of the Passport Rules, 1980 provide for duration of
passport or travel document. Rule 12 clearly stipulates that, an ordinary
passport for person other than children below the age of 15 year containing
36 pages or 60 pages shall be in force for a period of 10 years from date of
its issue. Under Rule 12(1-A) an ordinary passport for the child below the
age of 15 years containing 36 pages shall be enforced for a period of 5 years
from the date of its issue or until the child attain the age of 15 years
whichever is earlier. Perusal of the Rule 12 of the Passport Rules, 1980,
makes it clear that passport for persons other than children below the age
of 15 years, shall be in force for a period of 10 years, from the date of its
issue, thereby meaning that the passport is granted in blocks/period of 10
years. Under the rules all qualifying applicants are entitled to have passport
renewed for at least ten years unless otherwise directed by the Court .
17/56
::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 11/05/2026 00:05:15 :::

Sagar 18 Final Passport 21-04-26.docx
st
20) The Notification no. GSR 517(E) dated 25 August 1993, is
issued under section 22 of the said Act. The said notification provides for
issuance of passport to applicants who have criminal proceedings pending
against them and whose application would therefore attract provision 6(2)
(f) of the said Act. It is pertinent to note that, the Notification is issued in
public interest and provides that citizens against whom proceedings in
respect of an offences allegedly committed by them are pending before a
criminal court and who produce orders from the court concerning
permitting them to depart from India are exempted from the operation of
provision of section 6 (2) (f) of the said Act.
21) The Office Memorandum of Ministry Of External Affairs, dated
th th
10 October 2019, (OM) reiterates the earlier notification dated 25 August
1993. The OM in para 3, provides that applicants may be refused passports
only on grounds mentioned under Section 6(2) of the Passports Act, 1967.
The OM specifically records that, the notification was introduced to give
relief to such applicants against whom criminal proceedings are pending
before any Court of law in India but who may need to travel abroad for
some urgent business. The OM in para 5, provides for instructions which
may be adopted while processing the passport applications in respect of
those applicants who may have criminal proceedings pending before a
criminal court in India. The following is provided:-
18/56
::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 11/05/2026 00:05:15 :::

Sagar 19 Final Passport 21-04-26.docx
(i) The provisions of GSR 570(E) may be strictly applied in all
cases. GSR 570(E) is a statutory notification and hence forms part of
the Rules. It is to be noted that as per Section 5(2) of the Passports
Act, 1967, the passport authority shall by order in writing take a
decision whether to issue or refuse a passport, after making such
inquiry, if any, as it may consider necessary. Moreover, Section 7 of the
Passports Act, provides that a passport or travel document may be
issued for a shorter period than the prescribed period if the passport
authority, for reasons to be communicated in writing to the applicant,
considers in any case that the passport or travel document should be
issued for a shorter period. Rule 12 of the Passport Rules, 1980 only
states that an ordinary passport shall be in force for a period of 10
years which implies that an ordinary passport cannot be issued
beyond a period of 10 years.
(ii) Whenever an applicant is submitting a 'No Objection
Certificate' (NOC) from a Court of law in India, the applicant should
be advised that undertaking as per GSR 570(E) should be complete in
all respects and should mention all the pending criminal cases against
the applicant. The undertaking will have a note clearly stating that if
any false or incomplete information is submitted by an applicant,
then his passport application is liable to be rejected.
(iii) Extant instructions clearly lay down that such applications
should be processed on pre-Police Verification (PV) mode. "Pre-PV"
would be mandatory in all cases of applications submitted with GSR
570(E) to ensure that the undertaking submitted by the applicant is
properly matched with the criminal cases mentioned in the Police
Verification Report (PVR). Hence, such applications should not be
accepted under Tatkaal nor such applications be moved to "post-PV"
mode or "No-PV" mode without proper justification and approval to
be recorded in writing.
(iv) If an undertaking is incomplete or misleading and the
applicant is found to have suppressed details of other criminal cases
against the applicant, a Show Cause Notice should be issued to the
applicant and action initiated against that applicant as per provisions
of Section 12 of the Passports Act, 1967. If information that an
applicant has obtained a passport by making a false submission or by
suppressing material facts comes to light after the passport has been
issued, the passport may be impounded or revoked as per provision of
Section 10(3) (b) of the Passports Act, 1967, after following the due
procedure.
(v) In case where the first Police Verification(PV) is 'Adverse',
19/56
::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 11/05/2026 00:05:15 :::

Sagar 20 Final Passport 21-04-26.docx
secondary police verification may be generated. While a secondary PV
is generated, it should be accompanied by a detailed letter seeking
clarification regarding the pending criminal cases against the
applicant and the status of these cases. Apart from generating
secondary PVR, the passport officers may, if considered necessary call
for discreet enquiry through the police authorities by sending the
court order submitted by the applicant or even seek verification from
other government agencies/departments, as the case may be.
(vi) In case where the secondary Police Verification is also 'Adverse',
it may be examined whether the details brought out in the police
report match the undertaking submitted by the applicant. It may be
noted that mere filing of FIRs and cases under investigation do not
come under the purview of Section 6(2)(1) and that criminal
proceedings would only be considered pending against an applicant if
a case has been registered before any Court of law and the court has
taken cognizance of the same.
(vii) If the details given in the police report and the undertaking
submitted by the applicant are matching, then the 'No Objection
Certificate' issued by a Court of law submitted by the applicant would
take precedence over any 'Adverse' report submitted by the police. In
such cases, the 'Adverse' report may be overruled with the written
approval of the Passport Officer.
(viii) If the details given in the PVR and the undertaking submitted
by the applicant are at variance, then a notice may be issued to the
applicant calling for clarification and advising the applicant to submit
details of all pending criminal cases as well as to submit a revised No
Objection Certificate (NOC).
(ix) If it is brought to the notice of the authority that an applicant
has criminal proceedings arrayed against applicant before several
courts of law, then the applicant may be advised to get NOC from all
the concerned court(s). Normally, the Court Order would make a
mention of the cases pending against the applicant as well as the
prayer made by the applicant. This may be examined along with the
undertaking submitted by the applicant and complaints or other court
orders, if any, that may have been received against the applicant.
(x) It may be noted that GSR 570(E) only exempts an applicant
from the operation of Section 6(2)(f) and none of the other sub-
sections of Section 6(2) of the Passports Act, 1967.
(xi) A revised Undertaking under GSR 570(E) is attached at
Annexure 'A'.
20/56
::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 11/05/2026 00:05:15 :::

Sagar 21 Final Passport 21-04-26.docx
(xii) Passport Officers may issue an internal SOP along the above
lines so that there is no confusion in handling of applications that
would attract provisions of section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967.
22) We shall now consider the law as laid down by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court and this Court, in respect of applications seeking
renewal/reissue of Passports when criminal proceedings are pending.

India and Others reported in 2014 SCC OnLine Bom 356, has made the
following observations and then issued guidelines as under:-
“9. ….. In view of the said affidavit we do not deem it necessary
to issue any direction on the issue of renewal of the passport,
however, it is desirable that the Respondents put into place a
procedure to ensure that similar instances do not recur which
would cause unnecessary hardship to other applicants such as the
Petitioner.
10. In the circumstances, we propose to issue guidelines to be of
the passports, in all cases, where the Magistrate's court has
directed that the passports may be renewed as per the "Rules".
11. Accordingly, we issue the following directions:
(a) in all cases where the Magistrate's court directs renewal of
the passports under the Rules, the Passport Rules, 1980 shall
apply and passports other than for a child aged more than 15
years shall be renewed for a period of ten years or twenty years
as the case may be from the date of its issue. All qualifying
applicants are entitled to have passport renewed for at least
ten years. The Regional Passport Office shall renew the
passports of such qualifying applicants at least for ten years.
(b) In case where the passports are valid and the applicants
hold valid visas on existing passport, the Regional Passport
Officer shall issue the additional booklet to the same passport
provided the applicant had obtained permission to travel
abroad.
(c) If the learned Magistrate passes an order making the
th
reference to the said Notification No. G.S.R. 570(E) dated 26
August, 1993, the passport shall be renewed only for such
21/56
::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 11/05/2026 00:05:15 :::

Sagar 22 Final Passport 21-04-26.docx
period that the Magistrate may specify in the order or as
otherwise specified in the said Notification where the passport
of the applicant is valid for less than one year, the additional
booklet may be issued subject to the orders to be obtained in
this behalf only of the Magistrate concerned.
12. For avoidance of doubt, we clarify that the guidelines set out
herein will be applicable only in the cases where the learned
Magistrate ordered renewal of the passports as per Passport Rules,
1980 and to no other. In other cases, where the learned Magistrate
had granted permission to the accused persons to depart from
India, the provisions of section 6(2) (f) of the Passports Act, 1967
and the Notification(s) issued thereunder from time to time by the
Ministry of External Affairs or such other competent authority so
empowered, will continue to apply and directions permitting the
accused persons to depart from India and/or the orders permitting
renewal of the passports of such accused persons shall continue to
be governed by such Notification(s).”
22.2) This Court in the case of Abbas Hatimbhai Kagalwala Vs. The
State of Maharashtra and Anr reported in 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 1992 , has
observed that:-
“3. Learned Counsel for the Union relies upon Notification dated
25.8.1993 and Section 6.2 (f) of the Passport Act, 1967, to conclude
that the Petitioner has to obtain a permission of the Court where
criminal case is pending against the Petitioner for the purpose of
issuance of the Passport. It will be a case of issuance of the Passport
and not renewal of the Passport.
4. It is the case of the Petitioner that validity of the Passport came to
an end in the year 2017. The Petitioner applied for renewal and said
application is pending for more than 4 years. It is also a fact that a
criminal case is pending against the 465, 467 r/w 120-B of the
Indian Penal Code.”
After considering the facts of the case, the Court in clause (i) of the
operative part of the order specifically directed that
“ i) The Respondent shall process the application of the petitioner
for renewal of Passport without insisting for the permission of the
Court, where a criminal case is pending against the Petitioner. If the
Petitioner is travelling abroad, then the Petitioner would be required
22/56
::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 11/05/2026 00:05:15 :::

Sagar 23 Final Passport 21-04-26.docx
to seek permission from the Court where criminal case os pending.”
22.3) This Court in the case of Amol Vasant Kelkar Vs. Union of India
reported in AIR OLINE 2021 BOM 977 , has observed that: -
“16. We are of the opinion that the Magistrate ought to have
assigned reasons if he was of the opinion that renewal of the
passport of the petitioner had to be granted only for a limited
period of two years. Since, no such reasons have been assigned, the
said direction for renewal of passport for a limited period is
rendered erroneous. The Magistrate could very well have said that
the passport be renewed as per Rules. By application of law laid
down by this court in the above judgments, it would necessarily
means that the passport of the petitioner would be renewed for a
period of 10 years, subject to the petitioner satisfying other
requirements as per the said Act and Rules framed thereunder.
Therefore, we find that the impugned order passed by the
Magistrate to that extent is not sustainable and it needs to be
modified.”

that:-

23/56
::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 11/05/2026 00:05:15 :::

Sagar 24 Final Passport 21-04-26.docx

…. “On reading of other guidelines in clause 5, when minutely
read, it is evident that they are indicated to be followed when the
passport has to be issued and this includes police verification as
well as the calling for clarification as regards the pending
criminal cases and the No Objection Certificate from the
concerned Court.
In case of the Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu (supra), the Apex
Court on analysing the Scheme of Section 6 had specifically held
that the refusal of a passport can be only in cases where the
applicant is convicted during the period of 5 years immediately
preceding the date of application for an offence involving moral
turpitude and sentence for imprisonment is not less than 2 years.
The procedure that is contemplated under Section 6(2), involves
the decision of the Passport Authority to refuse to issue a passport
or travel documents for visiting any foreign country under clause
(c) of sub-section (2) of Section 5 and this includes a refusal to
issue the passport or travel document as the case may be, when
an application is made for issuance of passport. Neither Section 5
nor Section 6 apply to the renewal of passport as it is very clear
that when for the first time a passport is issued, a thorough
investigation is expected to be carried out but where criminal
case is pending against an applicant and he seek renewal or when
an appeal is pending before the competent Court, he has to
approach the Court seeking no objection for renewal.
In absence of any period being specified in the order and when
the Court direct that the application for renewal of passport shall
be considered irrespective of the pendency of criminal appeal or
criminal case, in such a stipulation, Rule 12 of the Passport Rules,
1980, shall come into operation, which clearly stipulate that an
ordinary passport for persons other than children below the age
of 15 years, shall be in force for a period of 10 years, from the
date of its issuance. Therefore, once a passport is allowed to be
renewed, it shall necessarily be in terms of Rule 12, i.e. for a
period of 10 years unless and until a specific embargo is put in by
the Court, stating that the renewal shall be only restricted to one
year.”
24/56
::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 11/05/2026 00:05:15 :::

Sagar 25 Final Passport 21-04-26.docx

Patil & Ors. Vs. Union of India Through Ministry of External Affairs & Ors.

“8. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned communication
th
dated 24 February, 2025, issued by the Regional Office
th
rejecting the passport application and the order dated 15
February 2025 passed by the JMFC, Mohol are quashed and set
aside. The Respondent No.2 shall re-issue the passports of the
Petitioners for a period of five years in accordance with the
Passports Act, 1967 and rules and regulations thereunder.
9. Needless to state, that if the Petitioners are desirous of
travelling abroad, the Petitioners are required to seek
permission of the Trial Court before leaving the country in
terms of the conditions of their anticipatory bail order.”
22.7) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vangala Kasturi
Rangacharyulu Versus Central Bureau of Investigation reported in 2021
SCC OnLine SC 3549 has observed that:-
“7. The refusal of a passport can be only in case where an
applicant is convicted during the period of 5 years immediately
proceeding the date of application for an offence involving moral
turpitude and sentence for imprisonment for not less than two
years.
8. Section 6.2(f) relates to a situation where the applicant is facing
trial in a criminal court.
9. Admittedly, at present, the conviction of the appellant stands
still the disposal of the criminal appeal. The sentence which he has
to undergo is for a period of one year. The passport authority
cannot refuse the renewal of the passport on the ground of
pendency of the criminal appeal.”

25/56
::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 11/05/2026 00:05:15 :::

Sagar 26 Final Passport 21-04-26.docx

2024 has directed that, the passport be renewed in accordance with the

22.9) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahesh Kumar
Agarwal Vs. Union of India & Anr reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2887 ,
has held that:-
“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 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.
12. …...In our view, once the criminal courts, with full knowledge of
the pending proceedings, consciously allowed renewal subject to the
condition that the appellant shall not travel abroad without their
permission and, in the case of the NIA Court, required redeposit of
the renewed passport, the underlying concern of Section 6(2)(f)
stood adequately addressed under judicial supervision.
15. The reasoning of the learned Single Judge proceeds on the basis
that, once Section 6(2)(f) is attracted, renewal of a passport is
virtually ruled out unless the criminal court, at the same time,
permits a particular foreign trip for a specified duration. With
respect, this approach overlooks two features of the statutory
26/56
::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 11/05/2026 00:05:15 :::

Sagar 27 Final Passport 21-04-26.docx
scheme. First, Section 6(2)(f) is a ground for refusal at the stage of
issue or re-issue, but it is expressly made subject to “the other
provisions” of the Act, which include Section 22 and the exemption
carved out through GSR 570(E). Second, GSR 570(E) does not
compel the criminal court to authorise a particular journey. It
proceeds on the broader premise that where the criminal court
permits the applicant to depart from India and the period of validity
can be anchored either in the court's order or in the default periods
mentioned in the notification, the embargo in Section 6(2)(f) stands
lifted to that extent. In the present case, both criminal courts have
adopted a different but equally legitimate method of control by
allowing renewal while reserving to themselves the power to
regulate each instance of foreign travel. That method satisfies the
statutory concern of securing the accused's presence as effectively as,
if not more effectively than, a one-time permission for a single trip.
16. The respondents and the Calcutta High Court have also treated
the expression “permission to depart from India” in GSR 570(E) as if
it necessarily refers only to a concrete permission for an immediately
proposed journey. We do not read the notification in so narrow a
manner. Where, as here, the conditions of bail already stipulate that
the appellant shall not leave the country without prior permission of
the court concerned, and the same court then grants no objection to
renewal of the passport without relaxing that condition, the
requirement that departure from India shall be subject to judicial
permission is built into the very terms of the exemption. The
passport authority is not required, at the renewal stage, to demand a
schedule of future journeys or visas which may not yet exist. Its task
is to see whether, despite pending proceedings, the criminal courts
have chosen to keep the possibility of travel open under their
supervision. Once that position is clear, GSR 570(E) applies and the
bar under Section 6(2)(f) cannot be invoked to refuse renewal
altogether.
22. It is important to keep distinct the possession of a valid passport
and the act of travelling abroad. A passport is a civil document that
enables its holder to seek a visa and, subject to other laws and
orders, to cross international borders. Whether a person who is on
bail or facing trial may actually leave the country is a matter for the
criminal court, which can grant or withhold permission, impose
conditions, insist on undertakings, or refuse leave altogether. In the
present case, both criminal courts have done exactly that. To refuse
renewal on the speculative apprehension that the appellant might
misuse the passport is, in effect, to second-guess the criminal courts'
27/56
::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 11/05/2026 00:05:15 :::

Sagar 28 Final Passport 21-04-26.docx
assessment of risk and to assume for the passport authority a
supervisory role which the statute does not envisage.
25. In the light of the above discussion, we are unable to sustain the
approach adopted by the learned Single Judge and the Division
Bench. Both have treated Section 6(2)(f) as an absolute bar so long
as any criminal proceeding is pending, without giving full effect to
the statutory exemption mechanism under Section 22 and GSR
570(E), and without adequately appreciating that the criminal courts
actually dealing with the appellant's cases have consciously
permitted renewal while retaining stringent control over any foreign
travel. They have, in effect, converted a qualified restriction,
designed to secure the presence of an accused, into a near-
permanent disability to hold a valid passport, even where the
criminal courts themselves do not consider such a disability
necessary.
26. We clarify that our conclusions are confined to the legal interplay
between Sections 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 22 of the Passports Act, GSR
570(E) and the OM dated 10.10.2019, on the facts of the present
case. We express no opinion on the merits of the criminal
proceedings pending before the NIA Court, Ranchi, or on the appeal
pending before the Delhi High Court, nor do we dilute in any manner
the power of those courts to vary, strengthen or relax the conditions
of bail, including conditions relating to travel abroad, in accordance
with law.”

22.10) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumit Mehta
V/s State of NCT of Delhi reported in (2013) 15 SCC 570 in paragraph 13
has observed that:-
“The law presumes an accused to be innocent till his guilt is proved.
As a presumable innocent person, he is entitled to all the
fundamental rights including the right to liberty guaranteed under
Article 21 of the Constitution of India .”
23) Perusal of Section 6(2)(f), would indicate that it relates to a
situation where a criminal proceeding is pending and the applicant is facing
trial in a criminal court. No doubt, where criminal cases or criminal case is
28/56
::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 11/05/2026 00:05:15 :::

Sagar 29 Final Passport 21-04-26.docx
pending, the authority under Section 6 (2) (f), has the power to refuse to
issue a passport. This is one of the reason for refusal. This is a independent
power and authority under the said Act. An exception to the said restriction
th
is found in the notification dated 25 August 1993 and Office
th
Memorandum dated 10 October 2019, issued under section 22 of the said
Act. The said Notification and OM are issued in public interest and for the
benefit of the persons facing a criminal proceedings. The aim and purpose
for issuing the said notification and Office Memorandum appears to be to
reduce to a large extent and/or eliminate the inconvenience and
disentitlement of persons in getting a new passport or renewing the existing
passport or travel document when a criminal case is pending.
24) We are of the opinion that the main purpose and object behind
incorporating section 6(2) (f) as one of the grounds for refusing the
issuance of passport or a travel document is clear i.e to ensure that the
person accused of any criminal offence is at all times available to face the
trial, and appears before the concerned court as and when required for the
purposes of the criminal proceedings which are pending. This, according to
us is the ultimate object and there can be no quarrel or doubt with the
purpose or object. The aim and object are to ensure that the trial is
proceeded with smoothly, expeditiously and in a timely manner. Possibly, for
this reason, the permission of the Court appears to be considered necessary
by the executive and therefore clause (f) seems to be incorporated and
29/56
::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 11/05/2026 00:05:15 :::

Sagar 30 Final Passport 21-04-26.docx
rd th
notification dated 23 August 1993 and OM dated 10 October 2019 are
th
issued. On a perusal of the OM dated 10 October 2019, we have noticed
that, the OM specifically states that the court NOC would make a mention
of the cases pending against the applicant and the prayers made by the
applicant and nothing more. Under the OM the Applicant is under an
obligation to get the NOC from each and every court where the case or
cases are pending. In our opinion, considering the provisions of the
Passport Act, the authority and power vested in the Passport Authorities and
the terms of the notification as mentioned and reproduced in paragraph 22
hereinabove, we are of the opinion that, the need to take permission of the
Court in all and every criminal case may not be insisted upon. In our
opinion and view, the said terms/conditions as mentioned in the
notification and OM may be required to be modified and or reasonably
classified depending on the seriousness and gravity of the crime, nature of
the crime i.e. crime against society, financial fraud, the role/overt act, if any,
attributed to the accused, the adverse impact of the offence on the society
and the economy, the sentence that could be imposed under and in
accordance with the law, the antecedents of the applicant or if the applicant
is a habitual/repeat offender etc.
25) Under the said Act, it is the Passport Authority that has the
power to issue a passport or reject it under section 5 of the said Act, which
power is governed by section 6 of said Act. The refusal can be done only
30/56
::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 11/05/2026 00:05:15 :::

Sagar 31 Final Passport 21-04-26.docx
within the framework and as provided by section 6 of the said Act. The
power to vary, impound or revoke the passport is with the Passport
Authority under section 10 of the said Act and the power to effect
immediate suspension of the passport or travel document is with the
Central Government or its designated Officer under section 10 A of the said
Act. The passport Authority may also grant a passport or travel document
for a prescribed period or for a fixed shorter duration depending on the
type of the passport or as per the request of the applicant or as per the
decision of the authority depending on the circumstances prevailing at the
relevant time. The passport authority under the said Act is empowered to
issue a passport in the first instance and also re-issue or renew the same. As
holding a passport or a travel document is a fundamental right, the power
and authority to deal with a passport or do any act which affects the
validity of the passport or travel document is limited and restricted by
reasons mentioned in section 6 , 10 and 10 A of the said Act. The authority
and power of the passport authorities under section 5, 6 10 and 10A of the
said Act are all guided and limited by the provisions of the said Act. Under
the said Act, the power and authority of the Court to revoke the passport or
the travel document is under section 10(7) of the said Act on the conviction
of the accused for any offence under the Passport Act or rules made
thereunder or under 10(8) of the said Act, to an Appellate Court or the
High Court while exercising the powers of revision. The concerned criminal
31/56
::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 11/05/2026 00:05:15 :::

Sagar 32 Final Passport 21-04-26.docx
courts before which the criminal proceedings are pending are primarily
concerned with the criminal proceedings, the offences alleged therein and
in deciding the said criminal prosecution after conducting a fair and just
trial as per and in accordance with the law. The Courts role is concerned
and limited to conducting and concluding the trial and ensuring that the
accused is present and available for, at and throughout the trial. At the
highest the concerned criminal court, can only give and make available the
details/sections for which the accused is put on trial, the number of
witnesses and the status of the criminal proceedings. According to us all
the information can be made available and would be covered by the
Affidavit and undertaking which the accused is required to submit under
rd th
the notification dated 23 August 1993 and Office Memorandum dated 10
October 2019. The information regarding to the criminal proceedings may
possibly be endorsed by the concerned Officer/Administrative Head Clerk in
the criminal Court. According to us, considering the provisions of the said
Act more particularly sections 5, 6, 10 and 10A the question of giving an
NOC or permission to seek renewal to the accused/applicant may not
strictly be within the power and authority of the concerned criminal court.
According to the said Act, the said power and authority is vested exclusively
and solely in the passport authority and not the criminal courts.
th th
26) Pursuant to the notification dated 25 August and 10 October
2019 Courts have been given a limited power or authority to issue a
32/56
::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 11/05/2026 00:05:15 :::

Sagar 33 Final Passport 21-04-26.docx
NOC/permission mentioning the details of the case and prayers made
therein. Under the Act, a passport or travel document can be varied,
impounding or revoked under section 10 and suspended by the Central
government in public interest under section 10A of the said Act. This
indicates that the power to deal with the validity of the passport or travel
documents is exclusively with the Passport Authorities. Pertinent to note
that, even these powers are circumscribed in the terms of section 10 (3) (a)
to (h). If the terms of Section 10 (3) are not satisfied, the passport cannot
be impounded or revoked. Further, if the passport is not impounded or
revoked under Section 10 (3), the passport cannot even be suspended
under Section 10-A. The Court has powers only under section 10(7) and
10(8) of the said Act and no more. Under the Passport Act, Section 10(7)
provides that a court convicting the holder of the passport or travel
document for any offence under the Passport Act or the rules made
thereunder may revoke the passport or travel document, which revocation
shall become void if the conviction is set aside on appeal or otherwise.
Section 10(8) of the Passport Act provides that an order of revocation under
section 10(7) may be made by an appellate court or by the High Court
when exercising its powers of revision. On a reading of the said Act, it is
therefore clear that the power and authority to issue a passport or vary or
impound or revoke or suspend a passport or travel document is vested with
the passport authority. The Courts have the limited powers as mentioned to
33/56
::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 11/05/2026 00:05:15 :::

Sagar 34 Final Passport 21-04-26.docx
revoke the herein above and of course the power of judicial scrutiny and
review when the question of the order affecting the fundamental rights
under Article 21 of the Constitution of India are affected and encroached
into by the Authorities. The orders of the concerned criminal court in
passing directions to deposit or surrender the passport or directing the
accused to seek prior permission before leaving the country cannot be
equated with the powers of the Passport Authorities under sections 5,6,10
or 10A of the said Act. The said directions and orders passed by the
concerned criminal court are only with a view and objective to ensure the
presence of the accused at the trial and to ensure that the trial is not
delayed or derailed for any reason whatsoever.
27) Perusal of the sections 5, 6, 7 and 10 would make it clear that
the power and authority to issue a passport or travel document is vested
with the Passport Authorities. The reasons based on which a passport or
travel document can be refused are limited, precise and specifically
mentioned in the sections. Similarly the power and authority to vary,
impound, revoke or suspend a passport or travel document is also
specifically mentioned and controlled by the provisions of Section 10 of the
said Act. As regards the bar under Section 6(2)(f) the same is watered
th
down, diluted and controlled by the notification dated 25 August 1993
th
and OM dated 19 October 2019 which are issued under Section 22 of the
said Act in public interest.
34/56
::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 11/05/2026 00:05:16 :::

Sagar 35 Final Passport 21-04-26.docx
28) Further a passport can be renewed as per the Passport Act and
the rules made thereunder. Under Rule 12, a passport would in the normal
situation be renewed for a period of 10 years, subject to of course the
person complying with the Act and Rules framed thereunder and orders of
the court. The duration/period of the valid passport can only be modified
and or altered only in accordance with and after following the procedure
and process as stated in Sections 7 and 10 of the said Act or by an order of
court.
th
29) It is pertinent to note that, the said Notification dated 25
August 1993 comes into play and would applicable only when, the person
against whom proceedings are pending is desirous of traveling/departing
from India and who has order from concerned court in that regard for
permitting him to do so. The said resolution refers to seeking exemption
under Section 6 (2) (f) when the concerned criminal court permits the
person to depart from India. An undertaking, is to be provided by the said
Applicant. The said GSR 517 (E) only exempts the applicant from operation
of section 6(2)(f) when he is permitted to travel abroad. In cases where
permission to travel abroad is not sought and the question is only of a
simplicitor renewal which is being considered, we are of the opinion that,
the Passport Authority is the ultimate Authority under the Act which is
empowered to consider said application independently, based on the
authority and power vested in it under the said Act and as per the
35/56
::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 11/05/2026 00:05:16 :::

Sagar 36 Final Passport 21-04-26.docx
provisions of the Act and Rules made therein and subject to the same.
30) Considering the overall framework of the said Act and Rules, it
is clear to our mind that the Passport Authority is the only and ultimate
authority under the said Act which is empowered under the said Act to
issue a passport or travel document as per the application or refuse to issue
a passport or a travel document for the specific reasons stated in section 6
of said Act.
rd
31) We have noted that the notification dated 23 August 1993
would be applicable to persons who have a criminal proceeding pending
and who have obtained orders from the Court to travel abroad. The
notification does not deal with any other situations like, a person applying
for a new passport after the criminal case is filed or in respect of a person
who is only seeking renewal without the desire or intention to immediately
travel, or a person who is only desirous of having and keeping a valid and
existing passport. The Notification also will not apply to cases where
cognizance of the crime is not been taken by the court. Perusal of the OM
th
dated 10 October 2019 makes it clear that only filing a FIR or a criminal
proceedings does not attracts the bar of Section 6(2)(f). The notification
cannot be read to mean and imply that once a criminal proceeding is filed
the applicant is disentitled from applying for the fresh passport or travel
document or that he is disentitled from simplicitor renewing the passport or
36/56
::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 11/05/2026 00:05:16 :::

Sagar 37 Final Passport 21-04-26.docx
travel document even if not required to travel. The situation, that a holder
of the passport or travel document only seeks renewal or applies for a first
th
passport is covered under the OM dated 10 October 2019.
th
32) Perusal of GSR 570(E) dated 25 August 1993 and the OM,
makes is amply clear that, the same were introduced to give relief to
applicants against whom criminal proceedings are pending before any
Court of law in India but who may need to travel abroad for some urgent
business. The same are issued in public interest. The GSR 570 (E) dated
25.8.1993 and the OM are both issued under section 22 of the said Act,
provide in detail for process, procedure and precautionary measures which
have to be taken by the passport authorities in processing the applications
of the applicants against whom criminal proceedings are pending. Various
checks and counterchecks have been provided in the OM to ensure that a
proper decision is taken in accordance with the law. In view of the checks
and counterchecks provided for by the OM, we are of the considered
opinion that the order of the concerned Court may not be necessary in all
criminal cases or may be necessary only in for cases involving serious and
or heinous offences, economic offences, offences against the society or in
case of the applicant who has multiple FIR/criminal proceedings registered
of the same or similar nature. According to us, the terms, conditions and
instructions provided in the OM are sufficient to meet and achieve the
objects and purpose for issuing the OM. We say this for various reasons. The
37/56
::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 11/05/2026 00:05:16 :::

Sagar 38 Final Passport 21-04-26.docx
th
OM dated 19 October 2019 provides for an independent enquiry to be
conducted by the Passport Authority if necessary. The Applicant is required
th
to file an undertaking as per notification dated 25 August 1993
mentioning all the criminal cases against the Applicant, contents of which if
found false or incomplete, the application is liable to be rejected. The
application is to be processed only in the pre-police-verification (PV) mode.
This is done with an objective to ensure that the criminal cases mentioned
in the undertaking is matched with the criminal case mentioned in the
Police Verification Report (PVR). The OM provides that a SCN may be
issued if the undertaking is found to be incomplete or misleading or it is
found that the applicant has suppressed details of criminal cases. In such
cases and eventualities, the OM provides that action be initiated of Section
12 of the Passport Act, 1967, or the passport be impounded under Section
10(3) of the said Act. The OM further provides that, in case the first Police
Verification turns out to be adverse, a secondary police verification is
provided for, which is to be submitted along with a detailed letter seeking
clarification from the Applicant in respect of the pending criminal cases. In
addition to the secondary PVR, the Passport Authority may if it deems fit
and necessary conduct a discreet enquiry by sending the court order/NOC
or seeking verification from other government department or agencies.
Most importantly the OM, specifically provides that mere filing of a FIR do
not come under the power of Section 6(2)(f) and that criminal
38/56
::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 11/05/2026 00:05:16 :::

Sagar 39 Final Passport 21-04-26.docx
cases/proceedings would be considered pending if a case is registered
before the court and cognizance of the case has been taken. It is provided
that, if the police report and undertaking are matching then the NOC issued
by the court would have precedence over the adverse Report, in which case
the the adverse report may be overruled with the written approval of the
Passport.
33) As noted earlier the OM specifically states that the Court Order
would mention the number of the criminal proceeding and the prayers
made therein. We are of the opinion that if the NOC of the Court is to
contain only the aforestated information, the same can be provided by the
concerned Court on the administrative side. The said NOC can be an official
document issued by a responsible officer of the concerned Court as a part
of his responsibility and duty. The said information will be based on and
extracted only from the Court record. Further, the said NOC shall contain
details of the status of the criminal proceedings, the stage of the trial, a
copy of the rozanama indicating the attendance and conduct of the
applicant at the trial etc and any other information if available on record in
respect of the Applicant such as antecedents, other criminal cases. We are of
the considered opinion that, the object and purpose of the court NOC will
be satisfied and meet based on the said information being provided.
Further, the judicial time of the concerned court will be saved and better
utilized and at the same time the application seeking the said information
39/56
::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 11/05/2026 00:05:16 :::

Sagar 40 Final Passport 21-04-26.docx
will be disposed of expeditiously. We say this also for the reason mainly that
the OM provides for enough checks and balances as mentioned herein
above. The other aspect, which we have considered, for such delays are
beyond the control of the Courts and cause considerable inconvenience to
the persons seeking an NOC/permissions. A perusal of the OM indicates
that, the said NOC is mainly used for cross verification and is in addition to
the undertaking of the Applicant, the enquiry and verification and
reverification. According to us, issuing the NOC as per the requirements of
th
the OM dated 19 October 2019 does not entail the application of a
“judicial function”. The application of a judicial scrutiny to the application
seeking permission for renewal or for filing an application for renewal of
the passport or the travel document is extremely limited for the simple
reason that, the scope of the power and authority to issue a passport and/or
vary compound revoke is already well defined and circumscribed by section
6 and 10 of the said Act and is specifically vested and bestowed on the
Passport Authority. The Courts before whom the criminal action is initiated,
may issue a certificate or endorse information regarding the criminal
matters pending before it and the prayers made therein. The details status
of the criminal proceedings and stage of the trial in the criminal
proceedings may be mentioned. This will also be in line with and in
th
consonance with the object of the OM dated 19 October 2019.
34) One must keep in mind that, a pending criminal proceeding or
40/56
::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 11/05/2026 00:05:16 :::

Sagar 41 Final Passport 21-04-26.docx
just the fact that a criminal proceeding is instituted, does not lead to an act
of automatic impounding or cancellation of the passport or travel
document. The criminal Court after taking cognizance and at the initial
stage of bail has the discretion to impose such terms and conditions it
deems appropriate so as to ensure that the accused does not interfere with
the ongoing investigation and that the accused is available at all times
during the trial and further as and when necessary and called upon by the
criminal Court. The order for depositing the passport or imposing
restrictions on movement or not leaving the country without prior
permission are discretionary orders passed by the concerned criminal Court
after considering the seriousness and gravity of the offence, role of the
accused and with the object of ensuring presence and availability of the
accused for the trial. In some cases, the criminal Courts order deposit of the
passport in Court. The order of depositing the passport does not
automatically invalidate the term/period of the passport nor is the passport
thereby automatically revoked. In such cases, the passport though deposited
in Court, is valid and allowed to be in existence and in force for the balance
term/tenure, even after a criminal proceeding is filed and during the
pendency thereof. This fact indicates that, the Order imposing conditions
does not effect the validity, period or existence of the passport. An order
imposing terms/restrictions on travel or seeking prior permission to leave
the country or a direction to deposit the passport in a pending criminal
41/56
::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 11/05/2026 00:05:16 :::

Sagar 42 Final Passport 21-04-26.docx
case/prosecution, according to us, is done as precautionary measure to
bring in required caution, to ensure that the trial is not frustrated and once
passed automatically form part of the or a condition of the passport or
travel document. The Order in a sense gets inbuilt therein and shall
automatically form part of the NOC. The Court, imposes conditions and
restrictions with the object and intention to ensure availability of the
accused person at the trial and to ensure that the due process in accordance
with law is followed and complied with. Further, when a passport is
directed to be deposited in Court, it lies with the Court and an application
would be required to be made to the Court for travel or for dealing with the
passport or return for the limited purpose of renewal. In such cases, the
applicant would have to approach the court, seek release of the passport at
the first instance, so as to enable him to apply for renewal. In cases other
than where deposit of Passport Orders are passed and where the accused
desires to travel, he is required by an application made to the Court, seek
prior permission of the Court to leave the Country. The concerned court
alone has the jurisdiction and power to impose such conditions as it deems
fit in respect of the applicant/persons right to leave the country and travel
abroad. The said application, contains the reason for the departure from the
country, the duration/period of the travel, a detailed itinerary with the
details of the place the accused proposes to stay, the contact numbers date
of return etc. At this juncture the Court after considering the facts of the
42/56
::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 11/05/2026 00:05:16 :::

Sagar 43 Final Passport 21-04-26.docx
matter, the purpose and genuineness thereof, and after hearing the
prosecution and based on the need and requirement of travel impose such
conditions as it deems fit including deposit/surrender etc. only to ensure
that the accused is available for trial and attends the court as and when
required at the time and in the course of the trial. If the court is of the
opinion that, permission may not be granted, it can be rejected in toto. In
our opinion, the role of the Court ends here. The question whether the
passport or travel document, should be renewed or whether a new passport
be issued for the first time when a criminal proceeding is merely pending is
not an issue which the Court can deal with and decide.
35) We have noted that, the purpose and object of the OM in
providing relief to person against whom criminal proceedings are pending
is clear from the fact that the OM itself provides that mere filing of FIRs and
cases under investigation do not come under the purview of Section 6(2)
(f). The OM provided that such criminal proceedings would only be
considered pending against an applicant if a case has been registered before
any Court of law and the court has taken cognizance of the same. So
criminal matters in which cognizance is not taken clearly do not come
within the purview of nor are they hit by section 6(2) (f) of the said Act.
The OM in fact reiterates the basic and fundamental principle of criminal
law that, a person accused in a criminal proceeding or for a criminal offence
is presumed to be innocent till the charges are established and he is proved
43/56
::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 11/05/2026 00:05:16 :::

Sagar 44 Final Passport 21-04-26.docx
guilty. One must also keep in mind that, if the person is acquitted, though
an appeal against acquittal is filed, pending and a continuation of the
criminal proceeding, the presumption of innocence is further strengthened,
fortified and confirmed. We are of the opinion that, it should be noted and
at all time remembered that as per the settled principles of law, an order of
acquittal would be interfered with and reversed only if the findings/reasons
of acquittal are perverse, unsustainable, based on a incorrect appreciation
or misreading of the evidence or results in a gross miscarriage of justice.
There have to be substantially compelling reasons to reverse the finding of
acquittal.
36) A few questions which would arise for consideration are (i)
What happens if the criminal proceedings are stayed by an Appellate/higher
court? (ii) What happens if the Court before whom the criminal case is
pending has not imposed any restrictions on the travel nor is the passport
directed to be surrendered or deposited in the Court? (iii) What happens if
the Court has not taken cognizance of the said criminal proceedings and the
accused is required to renew his passport or decides to apply for a fresh
passport?
37) One must also also keep in mind that, even if a accused has a
valid and existing passport he can depart from the country only after
completing other required formalities such as applying for a visa and other
permissions. A renewal of the passport only keeps the document valid and
44/56
::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 11/05/2026 00:05:16 :::

Sagar 45 Final Passport 21-04-26.docx
in existence. The renewal of a passport or travel document of applicant
against whom a criminal case is pending, would be subject to the condition
that the applicant would need to approach and apply to the concerned
Court for either getting appropriate orders/directions or seek
modification/relaxation of the restrictive orders or directions in respect of
traveling abroad. The said restrictive orders, according to us, from the date
of the order become a prescribed condition or endorsement of the passport.
The Order is integral part of the passport. Permission to travel abroad and
renewal or reissue of passport are completely distinct and different issues
and are dealt with by different Authorities i.e renewal by the Passport
Authority in accordance with the said Act and permission to travel by the
concerned criminal court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Mahesh Kumar Agrawal Vs. Union of India (Supra) has observed that
possessing a valid passport and the act of traveling abroad are distinct.
After a passport is issued, one needs a visa and in cases where criminal
proceedings are pending, the applicant is required to apply to the court and
seek prior permission if travel restrictions are imposed. To be denied a
renewal or reissuance of the passport under and as per rule 12 only on the
basis of a pending criminal case would undermine the object and purpose
of the Act and also curtail the fundamental right and option arising
therefrom of free travel. Curtailing the validity of a renewal of the passport
without reasons would also be contrary to the Act and the Rules.
45/56
::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 11/05/2026 00:05:16 :::

Sagar 46 Final Passport 21-04-26.docx
Considering the aforestated it would be necessary for the Passport
Authorities to consider which stage or time the Applicant is required to
approach the court i.e. at the time of filing the renewal application or at the
time of seeking permission to travel abroad.
38) It is also pertinent to note that after renewing or reissuing the
passport, the applicant/accused against whom, an order imposing
restrictions on travel or seeking the leave of the court before leaving the
country is imposed is required to approach the court for seeking such leave.
It is here that the concerned Court looks at the merits and facts of the
matter and decides whether to grant permission or to modify the conditions
already imposed. There is in that sense no right in the accused applicant to
travel or leave the country after the renewal of the passport. Permission has
to be sought and other formalities are required to be complied with. This
view is endorsed by various Courts. The purpose of insisting for a NOC from
th
the concerned criminal court, in the form as contemplated in OM 19
October 2019 therefore in our opinion may not serve the purpose. As stated
herein above, a NOC/certificate may be issued by the concerned Court.
39) Further, the Notification and the OM do not make any
distinction or does not differentiate between the applicants facing charges
of committing serious and/or heinous offences, or habitual offenders or
offenders who may have a high possibility of absconding or avoiding trial
46/56
::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 11/05/2026 00:05:16 :::

Sagar 47 Final Passport 21-04-26.docx
and those charged with lesser offences or for offences between
family/relatives arising out of land disputes, cross FIR’s between parties or
neighbors or family members due to some small issues, or matrimonial
proceedings or FIR being a offshoot and arising out of the main
matrimonial proceeding or offences which are of essentially of a civil nature
or the one of criminal prosecution arising out of a commercial transaction
etc. Nor does the notification take into consideration malafide and
malicious prosecutions launched with dishonest, malafide intentions to reck
vengeance and personal vendetta. This according to us is an important
aspect which is required to be considered and dealt with in an appropriate
manner by the Government and all the concerned authorities. Some
corrective steps need to be taken in that regard to make out a reasonable
classification.
40) One must remember that Section 22 of the said Act, gives to
the executive that authority exempt to any person or class of persons in
public interest from the provisions of the Act. The notification issued as
under section 22 of the said Act is issued in public interest. We are of the
opinion, that the object i.e. balancing the right to life and personal liberty
and ensuring a fair, just and expedient criminal trial which is sought to be
achieved by the said notifications in respect of persons facing criminal
proceedings may not completely achieved. There can be no quarrel with the
intention and purpose of the Passport Authorities i.e to ensure presence of
47/56
::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 11/05/2026 00:05:16 :::

Sagar 48 Final Passport 21-04-26.docx
the accused persons in the court when required and for the purposes of the
trial. But, imposing conditions and procedure which are onerous,
cumbersome and not in furtherance of and in aid to achieving the desired
object, we feel are unnecessary, cause unnecessary inconvenience and
therefore should be avoided. The Passport Authorities need to relook the
provisions, considering the observation made herein and strike a right
balance between the right to free movement, liberty and the right of the
victim to seek a expedite and smooth completion of the criminal trial.
41) Further we may also observe that, when an application is made
for a fresh passport or for a renewal of the existing passport or for issue of a
passport when the leaflets in the passport are used up or exhausted, it is
only the Passport Authorities who have the power and authority to take a
decision on such application in accordance to and in compliance with the
provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. In such cases, the
applicant may not be required to approach the Court. This aspect requires
to be considered.
42) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahesh Kumar
Agarawal Vs. Union of India (supra) has observed that persons facing a
criminal proceedings are not to be treated as “absolutely dis-entitled to a
passport” and the Court has on the applicant furnishing an undertaking “to
appear before the Court as and when required” pass an order to issue a
Passport, the applicant would be entitled to a passport. The Hon’ble
48/56
::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 11/05/2026 00:05:16 :::

Sagar 49 Final Passport 21-04-26.docx
Supreme court has further observed that the notification GSR 570(E) does
not compel the criminal court to authorize a particular journey and that it
proceeds on a broader premise that where a criminal Court permits the
applicant to depart from India and the period of validity is an anchored
either in the court order or an default periods mentioned in the notification,
the embargo in Section 6(2)(f) is lifted to that extend. It is further observed
that if the terms of the bail are already stipulated and a NOC is issued
without any modification, then in that event the condition that the
departure from India shall be subject to judicial permission is automatically
built in the very form of the exemption. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has
observed that statutory concern of securing the presence of the accused as
effectively as if not more effectively than, a one time permission for a single
trip. Thus, the ultimate object is to ensure presence of the accused and a
smooth conduct and consideration of the criminal trial. These observations,
the Passport Authorities are bound to comply strictly and completely in
letter and spirit.
43) We are also in agreement with the view expressed by the co-

Vs. Union of India (Supra) and Abba Hatimbhai Kagalwala V/s State of

49/56
::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 11/05/2026 00:05:16 :::

Sagar 50 Final Passport 21-04-26.docx
that, the order itself is not clear and in fact self-contradictory statements
are made therein. Under normal circumstances we would have remanded
the matter before the concerned Court, however taking into consideration
that the same pertains to the issue of granting permission to the Petitioner
for renewal of his passport, in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate
in not remanding it.
44) According to us, the Passport Authority should not raise such
objections as far as the renewal of passport is concerned. Though it is not
fundamental right of a citizen of India to get renewal of his passport by
adopting such legal remedies, the concerned person has to spent his
resources such as time and money in litigation. The Passport Authority
being the “State” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of
India, is expected to act in a fair and transparent manner. The Passport
Authority is requested to reconsider its various Notifications issued till date
to avoid inconvenience to the citizens of India.
45) Ultimately, by renewing the passport no right is accrued in
favor of the concerned person to travel abroad. It is only after the
concerned Court modifies the conditions of restraining Orders to the
concerned person is permitted to travel abroad.
45.1) The Apex Court in the case of Satish Verma V/s Union Of India
reported in 2019 SCC Online 2048 in paragraph 5 has observed that:
50/56
::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 11/05/2026 00:05:16 :::

Sagar 51 Final Passport 21-04-26.docx
5. The right to travel abroad is an important basic human right for it
nourishes independent and self-determining creative character of the
individual, not only by extending his freedoms of action, but also by
extending the scope of his experience. The right also extends to
private life; marriage, family and friendship are humanities which can
be rarely affected through refusal of freedom to go abroad and clearly
show that this freedom is a genuine human right. (See : Mrs. Maneka
Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248). In the said judgment,
there is a reference to the words of Justice Douglas in Kent v. Dulles
357 US 116 (1958) which are as follows:
“Freedom to go abroad has much social value and represents
the basic human right of great significance.”
45.2) The Apex Court in the case of Maneka Gandhi V/s Union of
India reported in (1978) 1 SCC 248 in paragraph 5 has observed that:-

51/56
::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 11/05/2026 00:05:16 :::

Sagar 52 Final Passport 21-04-26.docx

considering the suggestions of this Court, should also keep in mind the

bound to follow the law as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
letter and spirit.

following suggestion which according to us are in tune with the provisions
of the Act, the Rules framed thereunder and in furtherance to the
Notifications issued under section 22 of the said Act with regard to section
6(2) (f) of the said Act. The suggestions are as under
(i) The passport should be issued and or renewed in accordance with
Rule 12 of the Passport Rules 1980, unless otherwise directed by
52/56
::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 11/05/2026 00:05:16 :::

Sagar 53 Final Passport 21-04-26.docx
the Court by a reasoned order.
(ii) On the Applicant filing the required undertaking and Affidavit
duly verified by the concerned criminal Court, the Passport
Authority should not insist/raise objection for renewal of passport
on the sole ground that the Order of the Court is not produced.
One needs to keep in mind that the verified undertaking and
Affidavit are issued under the supervision of the Court.
(iii) The application seeking NOC/permission for renewal of the
passport/travel document be made to and issued by the
concerned criminal Court. The said NOC/permission should state
all the important and relevant details/information of the
case/cases as available on the Court record, the status and stage
of the trial, the total number of witnesses to be examined, the
witnesses already examined, and the sections under which the
criminal prosecution has been lodged and initiated.
(iv) The NOC/permission so issued should specifically state and attach
the copies of all the relevant Orders passed by the concerned
Court, before whom the criminal proceedings are pending, which
impose conditions, and/or restrictions if any. A statement made by
the Applicant regarding compliance with the terms and conditions
of the said order is to be cross verified from the concerned
department of the court and/or the Police Station. The
53/56
::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 11/05/2026 00:05:16 :::

Sagar 54 Final Passport 21-04-26.docx
NOC/permission shall be conditional upon the accused complying
with the terms and conditions imposed by the concerned criminal
Court.
(v) NOC/permission should state whether the accused is regularly
attending or not the trial, if commenced and the Court as and
when required and called upon by the Court.
(vi) The office of the Public Prosecutor of the concerned Court,
through the Investigating Officer/concerned Police Station, shall
confirm the antecedents of the accused and whether any fresh
FIR/complaint has been filed or any criminal proceedings have
been initiated. The information regarding FIRs is to be placed only
for the purpose of information.
(vii) Cases involving serious and grievous offences, financial frauds, or
offences against the State or the economy, or any other matter
which in the opinion of court is serious or there is a likelihood or
possibility of impacting the society at large, be placed before the
concerned criminal Court, which shall consider the application for
NOC/permission on its judicial side.
(viii) In case of a fresh passport application/applications made for the
first time/new passport, the Passport Authority shall not insist in a
NOC/permission from Court and shall follow strictly the
procedure, process and scrutiny as provided by the Passport Act.
54/56
::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 11/05/2026 00:05:16 :::

Sagar 55 Final Passport 21-04-26.docx
(ix) In case where the applicant has a valid passport and visa therein,
and the pages/leaflets of the passport have been exhausted due to
usage the Passport Authority shall issued/renew a passport in
accordance with the Passport Act without insisting a
permission/NOC and shall be subject to the further orders of the
concerned criminal Court.
ORDER
IN WRIT PETITION NO 1788 OF 2025

Application of Petitioner for renewal of his passport as per the
Rules and Regulations framed under the law.

Petitioner intends to travel abroad, he shall seek necessary
permission from the trial Court in that behalf.

55/56
::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 11/05/2026 00:05:16 :::

Sagar 56 Final Passport 21-04-26.docx
ORDER
IN

WITH
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 5555 OF 2025
a) We direct the Respondents to renew the passport of the
Petitioner for a period of 5 years from the date of its current
expiry.
b) Both these Petitions are accordingly allowed.
(RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE J.) (A.S. GADKARI, J.)
ORDER
IN

WITH
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 5555 OF 2025
th
C) By an Order dated 19 November 2025, we had
directed to renew passport of the Petitioners for the period of 5
years. But in view of above discussion and observations, we
permit the Petitioners to file an application for renewal of the
Passport for a period of 10 years instead of 5 years.
(RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE J.) (A.S. GADKARI, J.)
56/56
::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 11/05/2026 00:05:16 :::