Mere pendency of a criminal case against an applicant cannot justify refusal to renew a passport; the presumption of innocence must be upheld.

ORDER :

1. Heard Mr. Mohd Rafee, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2.

2. The Case of the petitioner as per the averments made by the petitioner in support of the present writ petition is that the petitioner is a resident of Purani Haveli at Hyderabad. He has obtained passport bearing No.G7252775 from respondent No.2 vide File No.HY3075585665323, dated 18.07.2023, which was valid upto 23.01.2018. Therefore, he has applied for renewal of passport by following the due procedure. After several representations being made by the petitioner, the petitioner has received a letter No.SCL/316361085/23, dated 01.12.2023, from the Passport authorities stating that the petitioner is involved in Crime No.42/2009 on the file of XV Addl. CMM, Nampally, Hyderabad for the offences punishable under Sections 147 , 148, 307 IPC, 295-A, 324, 333, 153A, 295(A) r/w 149 IPC and Section 7(1) CLA ACT , 1932, of Dabeerpura P.S., which was numbered as P.R.C.No.338 of 2020 and hence his passport cannot be renewed. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a innocent person and he was falsely implicated in the above said Crime No. 42/2009, and therefore, the respondents cannot refuse for renewal of passport of the petitioner on the ground of pendency of criminal cases filed against him and the said action of the respondent authorities is contrary to the procedure laid down under the Passports Act, 1967 and also the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu v. Central Bureau of Investigation , 2020 Cri. L.J. (SC) 571.

4. It is also relevant to note that the Apex Court in Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu (supra) had an occasion to examine the provisions of the Passports Act, 1967, pendency of criminal cases and held that refusal of a passport can be only in case where an applicant is convicted during the period of five (05) years immediately preceding the date of application for an offence involving moral turpitude and sentence for imprisonment for not less than two years. Section 6.2(f) relates to a situation where the applicant is facing trial in a criminal Court. The petitioner therein was convicted in a case for the offences under Sections 420 IPC and also Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, against which, an appeal was filed and the same was dismissed. The sentence was reduced to a period of one (01) year. The petitioner therein had approached the Apex Court by way of filing an appeal and the same is pending. Therefore, considering the said facts, the Apex Court held that Passport Authority cannot refuse renewal of the passport on the ground of pendency of the criminal appeal. Thus, the Apex Court directed the Passport Authority to renew the passport of the applicant without raising the objection relating to the pendency of the aforesaid criminal appeal in S.C.

5. The Apex Court in another judgment reported in Sumit Mehta v. State of NCT of Delhi , 2013 (15) SCC 570 at para 13 observed as under:

“The law presumes an accused to be innocent till his guilt is proved. As a presumable innocent person, he is entitled to all the fundamental rights including the right to liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”

6. The Apex Court in Menaka Gandhi vs. Union of India , 1978 (1) SCC 248 , held that no person can be deprived of his right to go abroad unless the