The right to travel abroad is a fundamental right safeguarded under Article 21, not to be curtailed by mere pendency of civil proceedings.

Heard Sri K. V. Vijay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri M. Srinivas, learned Standing Counsel, appeared for respondents 1 & 2 and Sri Ajay, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, appeared for respondents 3 to 5.

2. The petitioner was issued a passport bearing No.L6525939, for 10 years from 04.12.2013 to 03.12.2023, by respondent No.2. The petitioner made an application vide File No.VJ2076132837524, dated 05.01.2024, for renewal/re-issuance of passport. Respondent No.2 issued a short-fall notice dated 07.03.2024, due to an adverse police verification report, indicating that a case in Cr.No.136 of 2014 for the offence punishable under Section 506, 352, 341, 427, 447 r/w 34 of IPC on the file of Narasaraopet II Town PS. Another notice dated 22.04.2024 was issued. The petitioner submitted an explanation. Respondent No.2, without considering the explanation, issued another notice dated 29.05.2025.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Narasaraopet, by proceedings in C.No.301/Ref/SDPO- NRT/2024, dated 17.10.2024 (filed at page No.24 of the writ affidavit), granted permission to refer the Cr.No.136 of 2014 as Civil in nature. Learned counsel would also submit that, in fact, a memo was filed before the jurisdictional Court. However, the record was not traced out. The same is recorded.

4. Sri Ajay, learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted the instructions of the Station House Officer, Narasaraopet II Town PS, Palnadu District and would contend that the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Narasaraopet verified the CD file and referred the case in Cr.No.136 of 2014 of Narasaraopet II Town PS, as Civil in nature vide memo in C.No.301/Ref/SDPO-NRT/2024, dated 17.10.2024. A copy of the said memo was served on the de facto complainant.

5. Sri Srinivas, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2, would submit that due to the pendency of the aforementioned crime, the authority has not reissued the petitioner's passport.

6. 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.

1 (1978) 1 SCC 248): AIR 1978 SC 597

7. The Hon’ble Apex Court 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."

8. 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 Constitution of India .”

9. Thus, as seen from the expressions in the above authorities, mere pendency of a case, the travel document or passport cannot be denied. In this case at hand, as seen from the proceedings of the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, dated 17.10.2024, the authority granted permission to refer the matter as Civil in nature. In fact, a memo vide C.No.301/Ref/SDPO-NRT/2024, dated

17.10.2024, was