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

2025 Supreme(Raj) 84

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI, J
Khushwiner Singh - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
CRLMP / 743 / 2025
Decided On : 06-03-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
Mr. Jaipal Singh, Mr. Surendra Bishnoi, AGA

The right to travel abroad is a fundamental right under Article 21, subject to reasonable restrictions, and cannot be denied arbitrarily to an accused not convicted of any offense.

Headnote:

(A) Passports Act, 1967 - Sections 6(1) and 6(2) - Criminal Procedure Code - Section 482 - Petition to quash lookout circular and seek permission to travel abroad - The petitioner, facing allegations under IPC, sought permission to travel abroad for livelihood, which was denied by the Magistrate. The Court emphasized that the right to travel is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, and the petitioner, not being convicted, should not face arbitrary restrictions on passport validity. The Court found that the trial court erred in rejecting the application, and the lookout circular was quashed. (Paras 1-8)

(B) Fundamental Rights - The right to travel abroad is a fundamental right, and restrictions must be reasonable and justified. (Paras 10-17)

(C) Judicial Precedent - The Court referenced previous judgments affirming the right to travel as intrinsic to personal liberty. (Paras 4-5)

ORDER :

FARJAND ALI, J.

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 12.12.2024 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh in Criminal Misc. Case No.12/2024 whereby the learned Court has rejected the application filed by the petitioner seeking permission to go abroad and for quashing of the lookout circular issued against him.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 13.04.2023, FIR No. 108/2023 was registered at Police Station Mahila Thana against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 498-A, 406, 354 and 377 of the IPC. The investigation in the case is underway. The petitioner wants to travel abroad for earning his livelihood as he is working in a multinational company and under such circumstances, he filed an application before the court below seeking permission to go abroad and also prayed that the lookout circular issued against him may be quashed. The learned Magistrate vide order dated 12.12.2024 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 hereinbelow:-

“(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 22 of the Passports Act, 1967 (15 of 1967) and in supersession of the notification of the Government of India in the

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