SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 30651

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
G. Girish, J
Jafar K – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala – Respondent
WP(CRL.) NO. 543 OF 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: C.Dheeraj Rajan, Anand Kalyanakrishnan, Libin Varghese
For the Respondents: O.M.Shalina, Sangeetharaj NR

A court may modify a passport renewal restriction imposed by a Magistrate in a pending criminal case if the petitioner demonstrates a genuine employment-related travel need and there is no risk of the petitioner absconding or evading the judicial process.

Headnote:The petitioner challenged an order from the Judicial First Class Magistrate limiting the renewal of his passport to one year. The petitioner required a passport with five years' validity for travel for employment purposes. The court analyzed Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the petitioner's circumstances, noting only a single pending case regarding minor drug possession. The core issue was whether the limitation imposed by the Magistrate was reasonable given the petitioner's travel requirements. The court reasoned that in the absence of evidence suggesting the petitioner would abscond or evade legal process, a restrictive renewal period was not justified, thereby warranting a modification to permit a five-year renewal. The High Court allowed the petition, modifying the Magistrate's order to permit renewal of the passport for a period of five years from the date of expiry, while maintaining other existing conditions.

JUDGMENT Dated this the 22nd day of May, 2026 Aggrieved by Ext.P2 order passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Tripunithura, limiting the period of renewal of the petitioner’s passport to a period of one year only, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition (Criminal) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to pass necessary orders to enable him to get a passport having validity of five years.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala and the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India representing the 2nd respondent.

3. According to the petitioner, he is proposing to travel to Australia for a program in connection with his job, in the month of August, 2026, and for the said purpose, he has to apply for a visa of minimum validity of passport having five years. Thus, it is stated that the order passed by the learned Magistrate, limiting the period of renewal of the passport of the petitioner to one year, would cause great hardship and sufferings to the petitioner.

4. Going by the available records, there is only one case pending against the petitioner, which relates to the possession of small quantity of Ganja.

5. In the above circumstances, it cannot be expected that the petitioner would abscond or evade the process of law, if his passport is renewed for a period of five years. Therefore, the impugned order of the learned Magistrate is liable to be modified to the extent of permitting renewal of the passport of the petitioner for a period of five years.

In the result, this Writ Petition stands allowed as follows:

i. Ext.P2 order passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Tripunithura, stands modified to the extent of permitting renewal of the passport of the petitioner for a period of five years from the date of its expiry.

ii. In all other respects, the aforesaid order passed by the learned Magistrate will remain in force.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top