SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Raj) 1611

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
FARJAND ALI, J.
Lokendra Singh S/o Shri Prayag Singh – Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Criminal Misc. (Pet.) No. 8502 of 2024
Decided On : 28-11-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Hardik Gautam
For the Respondent: N.S. Chandawat

IMPORTANT POINT
The mere pendency of a criminal case does not automatically bar passport issuance; personal liberty must be considered.

Headnote:

(A) Passports Act, 1967 - Section 6(2) - Criminal proceedings pending against an applicant for passport - The court held that the mere pendency of a criminal case does not bar the issuance of a passport, especially when the applicant is of advanced age and has not been convicted. The court emphasized the need for a balance between personal liberty and legal restrictions. (Paras 3, 5, 6, 11)

(B) Right to travel - The court recognized the fundamental right to personal liberty, which includes the right to travel for significant family events, and stated that denying this right could cause irreparable emotional harm. (Paras 4, 8)

ORDER :

1. The instant Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (Section 528 BNSS, 2023) has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved from the order dated 14.11.2024 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaisalmer in Criminal Main Case No. 308/2022 whereby the learned Court has rejected the application filed by the petitioner for issuance of passport.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 24.10.2022, an FIR No. 310/2022 has been registered at Police Station, Jaisalmer against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 447, 427, 458, 392, 323 and 34 of the IPC. After investigation a challan has been filed against the petitioner. Afterwards, the learned trial Court has taken cognizance and charges have been framed against the petitioner and currently the trial is at the stage of evidence. The petitioner wants to travel abroad for earning his livelihood and under such circumstances, the petitioner applied for issuance of passport on 29.10.2024 before the Passport Authorities. Also, filed an application seeking permission of the learned trial Court for issuance of the passport. The trial Court vide order dated 14.11.2024 rejected the said application. Hence, this Criminal Misc. Petition.

3. This Court has dealt with the similar issue in the case of Balkaran Singh v. State of Rajasthan [S.B. Criminal Misc. (Pet.) No. 7824/2022] dated 21.11.2022. The relevant paragraphs of the order are being reproduced herein-below:

    “It is significant to note here that the Passports Act, 1967 does not confer absolute power upon a citizen to obtain passport. Section 6(1) & (2) of the Act prescribe certain conditions/eventualities when the passport authority is required to turn down request to make an endorsement or issue passport which includes a condition when an applicant is an accused in a criminal case. Relevant extract of section 6(2) is reproduced herein-below:

    “(2) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the passport authority shall refuse to issue a passport or travel document for visiting any foreign country under clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 5 on any one or more of the following grounds, and on no other ground, namely:

    (a) that the applicant is not a citizen of India.

    (b) that the applicant may, or is likely to, engage outside India in activities prejudicial to the sovereignty and integrity of India.

    (c) that the departure of the applicant from India may, or is likely to, be detrimental to the security of India.

    (d) that the presence of the applicant outside India may, or is likely to, prejudice the friendly relations of India with any foreign country.

    (e) that the applicant has, at any time during the period of five years immediately preceding the date of his application, been convicted by a court in India for any offence involving moral turpitude and sentenced in respect thereof to imprisonment for not less than two years.

    (f) that proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant are pending before a criminal court in India.

    (g) that a warrant or summons for the appearance, or a warrant for the arrest, of the applicant has been issued by a court under any law for the time being in force or that an order prohibiting the departure from India of the applicant has been made by any such court.

    (h) that the applicant has been repatriated and has not reimbursed the expenditure incurred in connection with such repatriation.

    (i) that in the opinion of the Central Government the issue of a passport or travel document to the applicant will not be in the public interest.”

    To diminish the rigour of sub-section (2)(f) of section 6, the Central Government has issued a notification dated 28.06.1993 which enables the passport authority to issue passport even in the case of a person covered by clause (f) of sub-section (2) of section 6 of the Act. The notification dated 28.06.1993 is reproduced as under in its entirety:

    “GSR 570(E) - In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of Section

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top