##PAGE1##

2026:APHC:27107

APHC010072892026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI [3327]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

TUESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF MARCH

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY

WRIT PETITION NO.4296 OF 2026

Between:

Sailaja Yenigalla ...PETITIONER

AND

Union of India and others ...RESPONDENTS

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. RAMBABU DEVARAPU

Counsel for the Respondents:

1. GP FOR HOME

2. AMRUTHA BOPPUDI (CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL)

The Court made the following ORDER:

The present Writ Petition has been filed seeking to direct

the respondent authorities to process the petitioner’s application

bearing No.VJ2066185664726 and to issue passport to her.

2. Case of the petitioner is that she is a resident of Poranki,

Krishna district. Her daughter was married and presently residing

in USA at 39951, Fremont Boulevard, Unit 123, Fremont,

California - 94538. The petitioner intends to visit her daughter

and for the said purpose, she submitted an application bearing

SRK, J

2 WP No.4296 of 2026 2026:APHC:27107

No.VJ2066185664726 before 2^nd respondent for issuance of

passport. While so, 2^nd respondent issued a notice dated

09.01.2026 referring to an adverse police verification report and

calling for her explanation. The application of the petitioner was

not being processed by the respondent authorities on the ground

that she was involved in a case in Crime No.239 of 2021 of

Kankipadu Police Station, registered for the offences punishable

under Sections 120-B, 403, 408, 420 and 477A of IPC and

Section 66(c) read with Section 43 of the Information Technology

Act, 2000-2008. Petitioner states that this Court, in WP

No.10882 of 2021, quashed the FIR registered against her and

others in respect of the offences punishable under Sections

120-B, 403, 408, 420 and 477A of IPC. Therefore, after

conducting investigation in respect of Section 66 read with 43 of

the Information Technology Act, police filed charge sheet in the

above crime, which was taken on file as CC No.1270 of 2023 on

the file of the learned V Additional Metropolitan Magistrate,

Vijayawada. Petitioner further states that this Court, vide orders

dated 03.04.2025 passed in Criminal Petition No.3597 of 2025,

granted stay of her appearance before the trial Court in the said

case. Aggrieved by the non-consideration of her application, the

petitioner has approached this Court.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said

criminal case does not involve any allegation of violence, fraud,

moral turpitude, national security, public order or international

ramifications; that the Writ Petitioner was arrayed as accused

without attribution of any specific overt act and merely on

SRK, J

3 WP No.4296 of 2026 2026:APHC:27107

suspicion. He further submits that mere pendency of a criminal

case cannot be treated as an automatic disqualification for

issuance of a Passport.

3. On the other hand, learned Central Government Counsel

appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 would contend that as the

Writ Petitioner suppressed the fact of pendency of criminal case

against her she was called for, to furnish proper explanation

regarding the circumstances under which she had suppressed

the material information in the application.

4. Heard. Perused the material on record.

5. A perusal of the material on record goes to show that the

petitioner herein is arrayed as accused No.4 in CC No.1270 of

2023 pending on the file of the learned V Additional Metropolitan

Magistrate, Vijayawada, for the offence punishable under Section

66(c) read with Section 43 of the Information Technology Act.

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that

petitioner’s daughter was married and presently residing in USA,

hence the petitioner intends to visit her daughter and mere

pendency of a criminal case cannot be treated as an automatic

disqualification for issuance of a Passport.

6. Section 5 of the Passports Act, 1967 deals with application

for obtaining a passport. Section 6 thereof deals with refusal of a

pas