The court ruled that passport renewal cannot be unjustly denied based on pending criminal charges if no explicit travel restrictions are imposed by the bail order.

JUDGMENT :

PANKAJ BHATIA, J.

1. Heard Ms. Preeti Singh, learned Counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and Sri S.B. Pandey, learned Senior Advocate and DSGI assisted by Sri Varun Pandey, learned Counsel for the opposite parties no. 3 and 4.

2. The present application has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. challenging an order dated 30.06.2025, whereby the request of the application for grant of NOC for renewal of the passport and permit the applicant to travel abroad was rejected mainly on the ground that the applicant has not filed any document relevant for seeking the permission from the court to travel abroad like the specific period of travel, the country to which the applicant wishes to travel or for any other purpose.

3. In the light of the aforesaid, the counsel for the applicant argues that the applicant is a stage performer and performs throughout the territory of India and also outside India in various stage shows in which the applicant is invited. It is argued that in respect of a performance, which was scheduled to be held at Lucknow, in which, the applicant was to perform, however, the said show was cancelled, which led to lodging of an FIR with Case Crime No.621 of 2018, under Sections 406, 420 IPC, Police Station Ashiyana, District Lucknow. The applicant was enlarged on bail vide order, which is on record, in which, no condition was imposed by the court below with regard to the applicant not leaving the country without the permission of the Court. It is argued that in view of the pendency of the said case, the applicant was required to furnish an NOC from the trial court concerned in terms of the office memorandum issued under the Passports Act and the impugned order came to be passed.

4. The Counsel for the applicant further argues that the applicant receives offer for performance outside India, however, generally the conditions are that the applicant should have valid travel passport failing which the applicant is not likely to be offered any assignment for performance outside India. It is further argued that the case registered against the applicant through Case Crime No.621 of 2018 does not even directly implicate the applicant as the applicant was stated to perform as stage performer and the cancellation was beyond the powers of the applicant. It is further argued that in view of the denial of the NOC not only deprive from passport to travel abroad guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India but also violates the rights of the applicant's to earn livelihood. It is also argued that the applicant has two children and substantial property within India and no material exists to suggest that the applicant would be at flight risk.

5. As regards the status of the pendency of the case, it is argued that there is no material to suggest that the case is proceeding and there is no likelihood to be concluded in near future, thus, it is argued that the impugned order deserves to be set aside and/ or directions be issued for renewal of the passport for a regular term of ten years on whatever condition this court deems fit being imposed so that the rights enshrined to the applicant are not adversely affected.

6. The Counsel for the Union of India, in the light of the provisions contained in the Passports Act, argues that there is no independent right of renewal of a passport vested and is subject to the restrictions contained in Section 6(2) of the Passports Act. It is argued that in terms of the directions issued by various courts, severity of the condit