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

2026 Supreme(Raj) 30

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
FARJAND ALI, J.
Mohd Imran Khan S/o Babu Khan – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 445 of 2026
Decided On : 03-02-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Rajak Khan Haidar
For the Respondent: Sriram Choudhary

The right to hold a passport is integral to personal liberty; arbitrary restrictions due to ongoing criminal proceedings, without conviction, are unreasonable.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 21 - Passports Act, 1967 - Sections 5 and 6 - Criminal Proceedings - Modification of passport validity - The petitioner sought renewal of his passport for ten years instead of one year - The court emphasized that the right to hold a passport is part of personal liberty and not issuing a 10-year passport without sufficient reasoning is an unreasonable restriction on liberty. (Paras 3, 6, 10, 12, 15)

(B) Judicial Discretion - Courts should not limit passport validity arbitrarily for those not convicted - The passport can be valid for ten years in the absence of any conviction. (Paras 14, 17)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, an accused facing trial for seven years, sought to renew his passport, originally issued for one year, arguing that it obstructed his foreign employment and family visits.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the trial court erred in limiting the passport’s validity and directed that it must be issued for ten years, subject to conditions to ensure compliance with legal processes.

Issues: The main issues involved the validity of restricting passport duration due to ongoing criminal proceedings and the balance between rights and judicial oversight.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that pending criminal cases should not automatically affect the right to obtain a passport, especially for those presumed innocent under Article 21, unless justified by specific circumstances indicating a flight risk or similar concerns.

Result: Petition allowed and modified conditions for passport issuance established.

Table of Content
1. seek modification of passport validity. (Para 1 , 2)
2. conditions for passport issuance discussed. (Para 3)
3. right to hold passport linked to personal liberty. (Para 4)
4. court's decision aligned with prior rulings. (Para 5)
5. court orders ten-year passport issuance. (Para 6)
6. issuance of passports contingent on fair procedure. (Para 7)

ORDER

1. The present criminal writ petition, preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been filed by the petitioner seeking modification of the order dated 15.07.2025 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ladnun, District Deedwana, Rajasthan, in Criminal Regular Case No. 62/2019, arising out of FIR No.133/2016 registered at Police Station Ladnun, District Nagaur, for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code.

1.1 By way of the present petition, the petitioner seeks limited modification of the aforesaid order to the extent of permitting renewal/re-issuance of his passport bearing No. AE493286 for a period of ten years, instead of one year, along with consequential permission to travel abroad.

2. Briefly stating the facts of the case that the petitioner, an accused on bail in Criminal Regular Case No. 62/2019 arising out of FIR No.133/2016 for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323 and 325 IPC, has been facing trial for the last seven years and seeks modification of the order dated 15.07.2025 whereby his passport was renewed only for one year. Aggrieved by the curtailed validity, which restricts his right to travel abroad for employment despite prior permissions granted by the trial court, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking renewal of his passport for the standard period of ten years.

3. This Court has dealt with the similar issue in the case of Balkaran Singh v. State of Rajasthan in 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

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