ORDER

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioners under section 528 of Bhartiya Nagarik Sanhita, 2023 (in short B.N.S.S.) (482 of the Cr.P.C.), against the order dated 25.6.2024, passed by the Special Judge (N.D.P.S.Act), Jaora, District-Ratlam (M.P.) in Case No.545/2019 whereby the application filed by the petitioners for granting permission to apply for passport has been rejected.

2. In brief, the facts of the case are that the petitioners are facing the trial under sections 307, 336, 147, 148, 149, 353, 332 and 333 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under sections 8/15(c) and 29 of the N.D.P.S. Act, in Case No.545/2019 at police station Industrial Area, Jaora, District –Ratlam (M.P.).

3. It is an admitted fact that in the earlier round of litigation when the petitioners applied for permission to obtain the passport, the same was rejected by the trial Court vide its order dated 27.2.2024, which led the petitioners to prefer M.Cr.C.No.20639/2024, which was disposed of on 29.5.2024, with the following observations:

“5. In view of the same, the impugned order is hereby set aside, and the matter is remanded back to the learned Judge of the trial Court with further request to decide the petitioners’ application in accordance with law without being influenced by the earlier order passed by the trial Court dated 27.2.2024, and also in the light of the observation made herein above.”

4. Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that subsequently when the petitioners again went back to the trial Court, their application has again been rejected only on the ground that there is nothing on record to suggest that any order has been passed by the competent authority to the effect that the passport shall be issued only after the permission is given by the trial Court, or that the passport authority has refused to issue the passport of the petitioners on account of the registration of the criminal case, and even assuming that the passport authority has refused the application, the same is correct, according to section 6 of the Passport Act, 1967.

5. Counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that section 6 provides for the refusal of passport on the ground of pendency of the criminal case in a criminal Court of in India, and as per the Notification dated 25.8.1993, it is clearly provided that such permission can be granted by the trial Court itself to obtain the passport to travel abroad. Thus, it is submitted that the impugned order be set aside.

6. Counsel for the respondent/State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer. However, the legal position has not been denied that it is only after the court gives the permission to an accused to travel abroad, he or she can apply for the passport.

7. Heard. In view of the aforesaid submissions, and on perusal of the documents filed on record, as also the Notification dated 25.8.1993; the relevant para of which reads as under:--