The mere pendency of a criminal case does not constitute grounds for refusal to issue a passport; the right to travel is protected under personal liberty until guilt is established.

Heard Sri Umesh Chandra PVG, learned counsel for the petitioner;

learned Deputy Solicitor General for respondent No.1 and Sri Ajay, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home for respondents 2 and 3.

2. The petitioner made an application vide file No.VS1077347395125 dated 31.01.2025 for issuance of passport under the Tatkal scheme. Since the authority received an adverse report, the passport was not reissued. Questioning the action of respondent No.1 in not renewing/re-issuing the passport, in pursuance of the aforementioned application made by the petitioner, the above writ petition has been filed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that a case in crime No.382 of 2022 was registered against the petitioner and others by Mangalagiri Town Police Station. However, a charge sheet has not been filed so far. He would submit that the petitioner moved an application for the grant of anticipatory bail vide Crl.P.No.604 of 2024. He would submit that mere pendency of a criminal case does not impede issuance of a passport. Section 6(2)(f) would not be attracted to the case at hand. However, respondent No.1 is not reissuing a passport.

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on instructions, would submit that the investigation in Crime No.382 of 2022 of Mangalagiri Town Police Station, has been completed. The petitioner is arrayed as accused No.3. He would submit that the final report has not been filed so far.

5. Thus, as seen from the material available on record, there is no dispute regarding the pendency of the aforementioned crime against the petitioner and others. However, the final report has not yet been filed before the jurisdictional court.

6. Section 6 of the Act deals with the refusal of passports, travel documents etc. Section 6(2)(f), which is relevant is extracted hereunder:

“6. Refusal of passports, travel documents. etc.

---

(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: -

---

(f) that proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant are pending before a criminal court in India;

---

7. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India¹ observed that the right to travel abroad is a part of personal liberty and the right to possess a passport etc., can only be curtailed following law and not on the subjective satisfaction of anyone.

8. The Division Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in its decision reported in Satish Chandra Verma v. Union of India (UOI) and others², observed as under:

"The right to travel abroad is an important basic human right for it nourishes independent and self-determining creative character of the individual, not only by extending his freedoms of action, but also by extending the scope of his experience. The right also extends to private life; marriage, family and friendship which are the basic humanities which can be affected through refusal of freedom to go abroad and this freedom is a genuine human right."

9. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Sumit Mehta v. State of NCT of Delhi ³ observed as follows:

“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 Constituti