01Facts
The petitioner, who was facing pending criminal proceedings under the NDPS Act, challenged the Trial Court’s refusal to grant an NOC for issuance of a passport.
¶ 1–2The Trial Court had rejected the application, citing the absence of evidence that the petitioner needed to travel abroad in the near future and the seriousness of the pending case
¶ 1–2The petitioner submitted that he had no present plans to travel abroad and undertook to seek the Court’s prior permission if he later wished to do so.
¶ 8The judgment refers to the impugned order as dated 17.06.2026 in paragraph 1 and 17.06.2025 in paragraph 11.
¶ 1, 1102Issues
i.Whether a person facing pending criminal proceedings may receive an NOC for issuance of a passport where no immediate foreign travel is proposed.
¶ 5–9ii.Whether issuance of a passport should be distinguished from permission to travel abroad while criminal proceedings are pending.
¶ 6, 8–1003Law Applied
Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967 provides for refusal of a passport where criminal proceedings are pending before a court in India, subject to the Act’s other provisions.
¶ 5The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s interpretation in Mahesh Kumar Agarwal v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2887, which considered Sections 5–10 and 22 of the Act and the Central Government notification dated 25.08.1993 (GSR 570(E)).
¶ 6That framework permits a person facing criminal proceedings to obtain a passport notwithstanding Section 6(2)(f), subject to the criminal court’s order and the applicant’s undertaking to appear when required; it does not make prior permission to depart India for specified dates a prerequisite to passport issuance.
¶ 6The Court also recognised that permission to travel abroad may be considered separately, on an application and subject to appropriate conditions.
¶ 9–10Provisions in the judgment · 7 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Passports Act, 1967 Section 5Section 6Section 7Section 8Section 9Section 10Section 22
04Reasoning
Applying that framework, the Court treated passport issuance as distinct from permission to leave India.
¶ 8–9The petitioner’s lack of an immediate travel plan did not, by itself, justify withholding an NOC for a document principally serving as proof of identity.
¶ 8–9To protect the proceedings and ensure the petitioner’s continued presence, the Court allowed the NOC for passport issuance while requiring him to obtain prior permission from the Court before travelling abroad.
¶ 1005Holding
The Court set aside the Trial Court’s order insofar as it denied the NOC and directed the Trial Court to issue an NOC to the petitioner for the limited purpose of obtaining a passport.
¶ 11Any proposed travel outside India requires a separate prior application to the Court and is subject to conditions the Court may impose.
¶ 10The petition was disposed of accordingly.
¶ 12Original Court PDF
NahruvsThe State Of Madhya Pradesh
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
