Back
SATYAVRAT VERMA
Gautam Rana – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
ORDER
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Central Government Counsel appearing on behalf of the Union of India and learned counsel for the State.
2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that petitioner was issued a passport bearing Passport No.L7755894 on 11.03.2014 and the same was valid upto 10.03.2024 as would manifest from Annexure- 1 to the writ application.
3. It is next submitted that during currency of the passport, no complaint whatsoever was made against the petitioner alleging any violation of the condition and misuse of the passport. It is further submitted that petitioner was made an accused in a criminal case being Pipra P. S. Case No.40 of 2023 dated 28.01.2023 registered under Sections 341, 323, 342, 324, 307, 379, 504, 506 and 34 of the I.P.C. read with Section 27 of the Arms Act. The petitioner was granted the privilege of anticipatory bail by an order dated 13.09.2024 in Cr. Misc. No.47612 of 2024 (Annexure- P/2) passed by this Court on the ground that the case has been compromised (Annexure- P/2A).
4. The petitioner applied for renewal of his passport on 12.12.2023 on urgent basis and the passport was renewed on 15.1
The court established that the impounding of a passport requires adherence to principles of natural justice and that mere pendency of a criminal case does not automatically justify such action.
The right to renew a passport and travel abroad is protected under Article 21, requiring judicial discretion to be applied, ensuring it is not curtailed arbitrarily while considering ongoing criminal....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that fair opportunity of being heard must be given following the order impounding the passport to satisfy the mandate of natural justice. Additiona....
The court ruled that the revocation of a passport cannot be justified solely based on pending criminal cases, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and the right to travel as a fundamental liberty....
The denial of passport renewal based solely on pending cases without affording a fair hearing violates principles of natural justice and the right to livelihood under Article 21.
Passport impoundment under Section 10(3)(e) invalid without pending criminal case in court.
The pendency of a criminal case should not be a ground to deny the issuance of a passport, as it violates the right to personal liberty and the right to travel abroad, as established by the Passports....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
