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) 32

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. 446 of 2026
Decided On : 03-02-2026

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

The right to renew a passport is part of personal liberty and cannot be arbitrarily restricted without due process, particularly when the individual is not convicted.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Passports Act, 1967 - Sections 6(1), 6(2), and 10(3)(e) - Petition for modification of order restricting passport renewal - Court held that restrictions on passport validity imposed without conviction are arbitrary and violate rights under Article 21 - Issuance of a 10-year passport approved, with conditions to ensure compliance with legal processes. (Paras 3, 5, 6);

(B) Legal principles established include that the right to travel is part of personal liberty and that the denial of passport renewal must meet standards of fairness and reasonableness. (Paras 4, 5.16);

(C) The petitioner, facing charges, was granted a passport for ten years rather than one year, allowing international travel necessary for employment. (Paras 2, 6);

(D) Main issues included the trial court's authority to restrict passport validity and the relationship between ongoing criminal proceedings and the right to travel. (Paras 4, 5); (E) The court found the trial Court's refusal unjust and noted the need for a reasonable balance between personal liberty and legal obligations. (Paras 5, 6); (F) The court ordered that the petitioner’s passport shall be issued with a validity of ten years and imposed conditions to ensure attendance at trial as necessary. (Para 6); (G) Petitioner vs. State; (H) No dissenting opinions noted.

Judgement Key Points

Summary

The petitioner, an accused on bail in a criminal case under Sections 147, 148, 149, 459, 341, 323, 506, and 307 IPC, filed a writ petition seeking modification of the trial court's order dated 07.07.2025, which limited passport renewal to one year, restricted travel to Dubai (UAE), and required an FDR of Rs.2,00,000/-. (!) (!) (!) The High Court allowed the petition, directing issuance of a ten-year passport, permitting travel abroad for employment without country-specific restrictions, setting aside the FDR condition, and imposing new safeguards including a personal bond of Rs.10,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs.5,00,000/- each from parents, plus undertakings for compliance and court appearance when required. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) The pendency of the criminal case was held not to impede passport issuance or visa grant, subject to these conditions. (!)

Legal Points

  1. Passport issuance is not an absolute right; under Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967, authorities may refuse if criminal proceedings are pending against the applicant. (!) (!) (!)

  2. A 1993 notification exempts such applicants from Section 6(2)(f) upon production of a court order permitting departure, but limits passport validity to the period specified by the court or one year by default if unspecified; renewals are similarly restricted unless fresh court orders are obtained. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)

  3. Courts may grant permissions beyond routine limits after considering offence nature, travel necessity, and public interest, without making it a matter of course. (!)

  4. The right to hold a passport and travel abroad is an intrinsic part of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution, and any restriction must follow a just, fair, and reasonable procedure with rational nexus to a legitimate purpose like ensuring amenability to court jurisdiction. (!) (!) (!)

  5. Passport Rules, 1980 provide for a standard ten-year validity for ordinary passports (except for children under 15). (!) (!)

  6. An accused facing trial (but not convicted) is presumed innocent; short-term passport validity imposes undue burden on livelihood and business, lacks statutory basis absent conviction or flight risk, wastes resources via frequent renewals, and violates principles of equity without prejudicing proceedings if safeguards like prior permission for travel and bonds are imposed. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)

  7. Country-specific travel restrictions and security deposits like FDRs without rational nexus are unreasonable and may be struck down, replaced by tailored bonds and undertakings to secure appearance. (!) (!) (!) (!)


Table of Content
1. seeking modification of passport conditions. (Para 1 , 2)
2. previous case law supporting passport issuance. (Para 3)
3. right to hold a passport under article 21. (Para 4)
4. maintain judicial consistency with prior decisions. (Para 5)
5. court's order outlining conditions for passport issuance. (Para 6)

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 07.07.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ladnun, District Deedwana, Rajasthan, in Criminal Regular Case No. 18/2022, arising out of FIR No.264/2016 registered at Police Station Ladnun, District Nagaur, for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 459, 341, 323, 506 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code.

1.1 By way of the present petition, the petitioner seeks a limited modification of the impugned order, praying that permission be granted for renewal/re-issuance of his passport bearing No. AE493286 for a period of ten years instead of one year, together with consequential permission to travel abroad. The petitioner further seeks removal of the condition restricting his travel to Dubai (UAE) alone and the stipulation requiring furnishing of a Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/-.

2. Briefly stating the facts of the case that the petitioner, an accused on bail in Criminal Regular Case No.18/2022 arising out of FIR No.264/2016 for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 459, 341, 323, 506 and 307 IPC, has been facing trial for the last three years. Despite repeated permissions granted by the Trial Court, his passport was renewed only for one year, thereby restricting his right to travel abroad for employment, which has led him to invoke the writ jurisdiction of 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 Ind

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