1. Modification of trial court order restricting passport validity to one year for an accused on bail. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Raj) 518
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
FARJAND ALI, J.
Abdul Aziz, S/o. Fule Khan - Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through The Public Prosecutor – Respondent
S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 924 of 2026
Decided On : 06-03-2026
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Rajjak Khan, Mr. Himanshu Soni
For the Respondent: Mr. Sri Ram Choudhary, AGA
For the Petitioner: Mr. Rajjak Khan, Mr. Himanshu Soni
For the Respondent: Mr. Sri Ram Choudhary, AGA
The right to hold a passport and travel abroad is a fundamental right under Article 21. For unconvicted accused, restricting passport validity to one year or limiting destinations is arbitrary and disproportionate if presence can be ensured through reasonable conditions like surety bonds.
Headnote:(A) Passports Act, 1967 - Section 6(2)(f) - Passport Rules, 1980 - Rule 12 - Constitution of India - Article 21 - Right to travel abroad and hold a passport as a facet of personal liberty - Any restriction on such right must be fair, just, and reasonable, bearing a rational nexus with a legitimate purpose (Para 4) - Ordinary passports are generally issued for a period of 10 years under Rule 12 of the Passport Rules, 1980 - Short-term passport validity for an unconvicted accused, without cogent reasons, amounts to an arbitrary restriction and undermines the principle of presumption of innocence under Article 21 (Para 5).
(B) Modification of Trial Court conditions - Restricting travel to a singular foreign destination, when general permission to travel abroad is granted, is unreasonable and lacks a rational nexus with the objective of ensuring the accused's presence during trial (Para 6(c)).
Facts of the case:
An accused on bail, facing trial for various offences under the IPC, sought modification of a trial court order. The trial court had renewed the petitioner's passport for only one year, restricted his travel to a specific foreign country, and required the submission of a Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR). The petitioner prayed for the passport to be renewed for the standard period of ten years, the removal of the destination restriction, and the waiver of the FDR requirement to facilitate foreign employment.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the restriction of passport validity to one year lacked statutory backing under the Passport Rules and acted as a pre-emptive punishment. It further held that limiting travel to one specific country was incongruous once the general right to travel abroad was recognized. The court determined that the accused's appearance at trial could be ensured through the imposition of personal and surety bonds rather than arbitrary restrictions on travel documents.
Issues: Whether limiting the validity of a passport to one year and restricting the destination of travel for an unconvicted accused is a reasonable restriction on the fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21.
Ratio Decidendi: The right to travel is intrinsically linked to the right to earn a livelihood and personal liberty. Since the applicant was not convicted, reducing passport validity to one year was disproportionate. The court reasoned that provided sufficient financial guarantees (bonds) are furnished to ensure the accused does not abscond, the standard ten-year passport validity should be granted, and geographical restrictions should be removed as they lack a rational connection to the legal objective of ensuring trial attendance.
Result: Petition disposed of; passport validity extended to ten years; restrictions on travel destinations and the requirement for a Fixed Deposit were quashed; petitioner directed to furnish a personal bond and surety bonds.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- constitutional law
- practice and procedure
- crime and sentencing
- legislation
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner sought ten-year passport validity; State opposed citing pending criminal proceedings. (Para 3 )
3. Right to passport is intrinsic to personal liberty; one-year validity is an arbitrary restriction without statutory backing. (Para 4 , 5 )
4. Denial of renewal or shortened passport validity for an accused, without just procedure, is an unreasonable restriction on Article 21. (Para 4 , 5 )
5. Directed issuance of ten-year passport, removed travel destination restriction and fixed deposit condition. (Para 6 , 7 )
6. Is the right to hold a passport a facet of the right to personal liberty under Article 21?
Yes, the right to travel abroad and hold a passport is an intrinsic facet of the right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. (Para 4 , 5 )
7. Can a court impose a geographical restriction on travel when granting permission to travel abroad?
No, once permission to travel abroad is granted, restricting travel to a single destination is unreasonable and lacks rational nexus with the objective. (Para 6 )
Order :
FARJAND ALI, J.
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 21.01.2026 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ladnun, District Deedwana-Kuchaman, 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 143, 149, 341, 323, 307, 459 & 506 of the IPC.
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.AD941477 (Earlier Passport No.Y8628051) 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 Saudi Arabia 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 Sections 143, 149, 341, 323, 307, 459 & 506 of the 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. I have heard the counsel for the parties and gone through the material as made available on record.
4. 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
