Pending criminal proceedings do not justify limiting passport renewal where effective travel safeguards remain in place.

M/s Modi Infosol Pvt. Ltd. allegedly availed ineligible Input Tax Credit of approximately ₹7.72 crores under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, on the basis of fictitious invoices issued by M/s Smartgen Infra Pvt. Ltd., which was found non-existent at its registered address.

Invoices amounting to approximately ₹42.94 crores were subsequently seized, and the petitioner and the co-accused, both Directors of Modi Infosol, were arrested under Section 69 of the CGST Act on 27 November 2020.

The petitioner was granted bail subject to, inter alia, the condition that he would not leave India without the Court’s permission and would deposit his passport with the Investigating Officer.

The passport was later released, but the restriction requiring prior permission before leaving the country was retained.

As the passport was due to expire in March 2026, the petitioner sought its renewal for ten years.

The Trial Court permitted renewal only for three years, subject to an affidavit undertaking not to leave India without permission and submission of a self-attested copy of the renewed passport.

The petitioner challenged the restriction to three years under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Whether the Trial Court was justified in restricting renewal of the petitioner’s passport to three years instead of permitting renewal for the regular period of ten years, merely because criminal proceedings were pending against him?

Whether the existing bail conditions and other safeguards adequately protected against the petitioner absconding or leaving India without the Court’s permission, notwithstanding renewal of the passport for ten years?

The Court exercised jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to examine the legality of the Trial Court’s order.

The underlying prosecution arose under Sections 69 and 132(1)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017, relating to arrest and the alleged wrongful availment or utilisation of ineligible Input Tax Credit.

The Court considered the Ministry of External Affairs Notification dated 25 August 1993, under which, during the pendency of criminal proceedings, passport renewal requires the concerned Court’s no-objection and is ordinarily limited to the period specified by that Court; where no period is specified, renewal may be for one year.

It also applied the principle that passport validity, by itself, does not override judicial restrictions on foreign travel, particularly where bail conditions require prior permission and mechanisms exist to monitor compliance.

It also applied the principle that passport validity, by itself, does not override judicial restrictions on foreign travel, particularly where bail conditions require prior permission and mechanisms exist to monitor compliance.

The Court considered the Ministry of External Affairs Notification dated 25 August 1993, under which, during the pendency of criminal proceedings, passport renewal requires the concerned Court’s no-objection and is ordinarily limited to the period specified by that Court; where no period is specified, renewal may be for one year.

The petitioner challenged the restriction to three years under Article 226 of the Constitution.