Court Directs Release of Impounded Passport Despite Non-Disclosure of Pending Criminal Proceedings

The petitioner was an accused in FIR No. 0056/2016 involving theft and illegal mining under the IPC, Gujarat Mineral Rules, and the MMDR Act.

He was arrested and released on bail in 2016, and a charge sheet was subsequently filed (Session Case No. 61/2022).

On 28.01.2022, the petitioner obtained a reissued passport (No. V6995589) valid for 10 years without disclosing the pending criminal proceedings.

Consequently, on 23.08.2022, Respondent No. 1 issued notices impounding the passport due to suppression of information, and the petitioner surrendered the document on 29.08.2022.

The petitioner approached the High Court seeking the release of his passport to pursue import-export business.

1. Whether the impounding of the passport should be set aside and the document released despite the suppression of pending criminal proceedings during the application process.

The court considered the provisions of the Passports Act, 1967, and the constitutional rights under Articles 14, 19(g), and 21 of the Constitution of India regarding the right to travel and carry on business.

It acknowledged the requirement that citizens facing criminal proceedings must generally obtain permission from the concerned trial court to depart from India.

The primary legal principle applied was the court’s discretionary power under Article 226 to grant relief and quash administrative notices where the interests of justice so require.

The court noted the undisputed fact that a criminal case was pending against the petitioner and that the passport had been impounded specifically because this information was suppressed during the renewal application.

The petitioner contended that the non-disclosure was a mistake by his agent and expressed a bona fide need for the passport for international business activities.

Balancing the respondent's objection regarding the suppression of facts and the procedural requirement for court permission against the petitioner's professional requirements and the circumstances of the case, the court determined that the petition deserved to be allowed.

The court directed the respondent authority to release the petitioner’s passport (No. V6995589). Rule was made absolute with a grant of direct service.