The right to possess a passport and travel abroad is part of personal liberty and cannot be restricted without legal grounds.

Heard Smt.Marella Radha, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Central Government counsel for respondents 1 to 3, and Sri Ajay, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the 4^th respondent.

2. The petitioner possessed passport vide No.N1229475, issued on 14.07.2015 for 10 years expired on 13.05.2025. The petitioner made an application vide File No.VJ2075100075725 dated 29.05.2025 seeking renewal/reissuance of the passport. The 3^rd respondent, due to an adverse police verification report, issued a notice dated 06.01.2025 to submit an explanation.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that a case in crime No.85 of 2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 506 IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the DP Act of Chimakurthy Police Station, Prakasam District was registered against the petitioner. The final report has not been filed so far. She would further submit that mere pendency of a criminal case is no bar to issuing a passport to the petitioner.

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for home, on instructions, would submit the final report was filed before the Judicial First Class Magistrate-cum- Excise Court, Ongole on 13.01.2025. However, the Court has not taken cognizance so far.

5. The issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by the order in W.A.No.383 of 2024 dated 29.10.2024. The Division Bench, considered the aspect of cognizance by the Court in a criminal case vis-a-vis an application made for 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 and the filing of a final report. However, the jurisdictional court has not taken cognizance.

7. Further, 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‟ble Apex Court in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India , [(1978) 1 SCC 248): AIR 1978 SC 597] 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 Division Bench of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in its decision reported in Satish Chandra Verma v. Union of India (UOI) and others, [ LAWS 2019(2) SCC Online SC 2048 ], 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