Man Facing CBI Trial May Renew Passport For 10 Years, But Needs Trial Court Permission Before Leaving India: Gujarat HC

The petitioner, an accused in a pending CBI criminal case, sought permission from the trial court to renew his passport for ten years.

The trial court permitted renewal for only three years and directed that he not leave India without its prior permission.

The petitioner challenged the three-year limit, relying on his business and family travel needs, and sought a ten-year passport.

The Regional Passport Officer opposed the petition as premature because no renewal application had yet been filed with that office.

The High Court held that the petitioner could apply to the Passport Office only after obtaining the court’s permission, and therefore rejected the prematurity objection.

The Court considered Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967, and the Central Government’s Notification No. G.S.R. 570(E) dated 25 August 1993, which are relevant to passport issuance where criminal proceedings are pending.

It also referred to Rule 12 of the applicable Passport Rules, under which an ordinary passport is ordinarily valid for ten years, subject to the Passport Authority’s power to issue one for a shorter period for reasons communicated in writing.

The Court relied on Harsh Mahesh Tanna v. State of Gujarat & Anr., which treated ten years as the ordinary renewal period and distinguished passport issuance from permission to travel abroad.

It also relied on Mahesh Kumar Agarwal v. Union of India & Anr., where the Supreme Court directed issuance of an ordinary passport for ten years while preserving the requirement of prior court permission to leave India.

The Court concluded that the ordinary passport period is ten years and that the judgments cited supported granting that period notwithstanding the petitioner’s pending trial.

It rejected the Passport Officer’s prematurity objection because the petitioner’s application to that office would arise only after the court granted the necessary permission.

However, the ten-year passport did not itself confer permission to travel: given the pending criminal case, the Court retained the requirement of prior permission from the trial court and left that court free to impose appropriate conditions on any travel request.

The petitioner was directed not to leave India without obtaining prior permission from the trial court, which may impose conditions in accordance with law.

The petition was otherwise disposed of, and the Rule was made absolute accordingly.