The refusal of passport issuance based on a pending criminal case violates the right to personal liberty and is not legally justified without formal cognizance.

Heard Sri Salikiti Karunakar, learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Deputy Solicitor General for respondents 1 to 3 and Sri Ajay, learned Assistant Government pleader for Home, for respondent No.4.

2. The petitioner made an application vide file VJF067507528925 dated 24.03.2025 for the issuance of a passport. Since a passport is not issued, the above writ petition has been filed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, as per the online status filed as Ex.P1, since the Police verification report is not clear, the SRSJ . W.P.No.l4818of 2025 petitioner’s application is under review at the Regional Passport Office. He would further submit that mere pendency of a criminal case is no bar to issue the passport.

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on instructions, would submit that the Police, Tadipatri (Rural) registered a case in crime No.382 of 2023 against the petitioner. Police have filed a final report before the jurisdictional Court. However, cognizance has not been taken so far.

5. The issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by the issue involved in W.A.No.383 of 2024. The Division Bench of this Court in an order dated 29.10.2024, considered the aspect of cognizance by the Court in a criminal case vis-a-vis an application made for the. issuance of a passport and observed as follows:

“16. Considering the facts of the present case on the touchstone of the principles laid down in the aforementioned judgments, it is clear that the Court of Special Mobile Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kakinada, having not taken judicial notice of the charge sheet filed before it, cannot be said to have taken cognizance much less can the Court be said to have initiated proceedings in terms of Chapter XVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

17. Therefore, we would have no hesitation in holding that proceedings would be said to have been pending only if cognizance had been taken by the Court and steps had been taken by the Court under Chapter XVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Since, there was no cognizance taken, there would be no question of ‘proceedings pending before a criminal Court’, which would attract the provisions of Section 6 (2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967 .”

6 As seen from the material available on record, there is no dispute regarding the pendency of the aforementioned crime against the petitioner W.P.No.14818 Of court has not taken ^

and the filing of a final report. However, the jurisdictional cognizance.

7. Unless the guilt is proved, an accused is presumed to be innocent and mere pendency of a criminal case is not a bar for renewing the passport, and

the right to travel abroad is a personal liberty of a person.

8. The Hon’bie Apex Court in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India ', 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.

9. The Hon’bie Apex Court in its decision reported in Satish Chandra Verma v. Union of India (UOI) and others^, 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."

10. The Hon’bie Apex Court in Sumit Mehta v. State of NCT of Delhi^,

observed as follows:

“The law presumes