Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN SHARMA
Amarnath – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Ranjan Sharma, J.
1. During the pendency of Criminal Revision No.25 of 2015, the Petitioner [Amarnath], has filed the instant application {Cr. MP No. 381 of 2025}, under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [in short “BNSS”] against non-issuance of passport and for seeking permission from this Court for issuance of passport, pending with Respondent No. 2 with file SM4060584016625 dated 09.01.2025 Annexure P-1, which was denied/withheld, on the plea that as per the police verification report, the case originating from FIR No 119/04 dated 19.12.2004 under Sections 279 & 337 IPC, registered at PS Bangana, is under trial.
2. Instant application [Cr. MP No. 381 of 2025] has been filed, seeking a direction, for issuance of a passport for enabling the petitioner to visit abroad {i.e. Australia}.
3. Upon listing of this application, notice was issued by this Court on 31.01.2025, directing respondents to file reply to instant application.
4. Upon listing of this case, today [14.02.2025], Respondent No.2- Regional Passport Authorities, Shimla has filed a Short Reply Affidavit dated 06.02.2025 [Taken on Record], stating that though petitioner had applied for issuanc
The right to travel abroad is a fundamental right under Article 21, and mere pendency of a criminal case cannot justify the denial of passport issuance.
The right to travel abroad is a fundamental right under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution, and passport issuance must consider relevant legal notifications and judicial discretion.
The fundamental right to travel abroad, the discretion of the court in granting permission for passport renewal, and the statutory provisions under the Passport Act 1967, along with the notification ....
The pendency of a criminal case does not justify the refusal of passport services, as individuals retain their right to travel freely, protected under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution.
The right to hold a passport is integral to personal liberty; arbitrary restrictions due to ongoing criminal proceedings, without conviction, are unreasonable.
Ongoing criminal proceedings can bar regular passport issuance under Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, while allowing for a short validity passport contingent on court approval.
Pendency of criminal proceedings bars the re-issuance of a passport under Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967; exceptions are subject to specific court orders.
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.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
