Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 35443
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J
Balavinder Singh – Appellant
Versus
The state rep.by, The Inspector of Police, CBI/EOB/Chennai – Respondent
For the Petitioner(s): Mr.K.P. Anantha Krishna
For the Respondent(s): Mr.B.Mohan, Special Public Prosecutor for CBI Cases
Courts must harmonize passport renewal validity across jurisdictions to prevent administrative conflicts in multi-court trials.
Headnote:Under Section 482 Cr.P.C./528 BNSS, petitioner sought to modify passport renewal conditions imposed by Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, limiting validity to four years in ongoing CBI trials across courts. Courts in Hyderabad granted 10-year renewal with travel permission requirements. High Court found divergent orders problematic for passport authority compliance, modifying Chennai conditions to align with 10-year validity. Issues framed as need to harmonize renewal periods and conditions amid multi-jurisdictional trials. Ratio: Courts must ensure consistent passport renewal terms to avoid administrative conflict, requiring prior travel permission. Petition allowed; conditions modified to 10-year validity, prior notice to respondent for travel, verification, and Hyderabad compliance.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition challenges restrictive passport re-issue conditions. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. hyderabad courts permit 10-year renewal; seeks alignment. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. respondent opposes; court reviews records. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. modifies to 10-year validity with safeguards. (Para 9 , 10) |
ORDER
This petition has been filed seeking to call for the records and to set aside the conditions imposed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai in Crl MP No.2505 of 2026 dated 18.03.2026 while ordering re-issuance of the passport to the petitioner herein.
2. It appears that the petitioner, being one of the accused, is facing trial in the following cases, viz.,
Sl.No.
Arrayed as
Case No.
Court
1.
A3
C.C.No.5231 of 2017
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai
2.
A6
S.C.No.264 of 2022
I Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad
3.
A2
C.C.No.5574 of 2022
XXI Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum- Special JMFC for trial of CBI cases, Hyderabad
3. The petitioner had filed an application in Crl.M.P.No.2505 of 2026 praying for an order to renew his passport. The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, vide order dated 18.03.2026, allowed the petition with certain conditions and the operative portion of the said order reads thus:
“In the result, this petition is allowed and the petitioner/A3 is permitted to get the passport re-issued with the following conditions:
(i)The passport shall be re-issued to the petitioner with a validity of four years.
(ii) The petitioner shall not travel abroad without the prior permission of this Court.
(iii)The petitioner shall produce the original passport, after its re –issue/renewed before this Court along with a copy for perusal/verification.’’
Seeking to modify the above conditions, the present petition has been filed.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner, who has been facing trial in the above mentioned cases, has sought permission before the Courts at Hyderabad for renewal of his passport. The learned Sessions Judge, I Additional Sessions Court, Hyderabad, vide order dated 24.02.2026 in Crl.MP.No.423 of 2026, has directed the Regional Passport Officer, Hyderabad, to renew the passport for a period of 10 years in accordance with law. The learned Sessions Judge has further directed the petitioner to surrender his passport before the Court within a period of one week of his return to India. Likewise, the learned XXI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate/ Special Judge for trial of CBI cases, Hyderabad has also permitted the petitioner to renew his passport for a period of 10 years.
5. While so, since the petitioner is facing trial before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, he has applied for permission to renew his passport, whereas, strangely, the learned Judge had permitted to renew the passport only for a period of four (4) years and the petitioner has also been directed to produce the original passport before the Court after its re- issue/renewal. The learned counsel would submit that the petitioner undertakes to approach the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chenai, whenever he intends to travel and get permission. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the old passport has been returned by the learned Sessions Judge for renewal and it is now in the custody of the petitioner and unless the order of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore granting validity of four (4) years is modified, the petitioner will not be able to get the renewal of his passport for a period of 10 years. Apart from that, the petitioner is ready to produce the renewed/fresh passport for verification before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore and thereafter, he also undertakes to produce the same before the Sessions Court at Hyderabad after verification by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistr
