The mere pendency of a criminal case is not a bar to the renewal of a passport, provided the applicant obtains necessary permission from the relevant court before traveling abroad.

ORDER

This is a petition filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondent to renew/reissue fresh passport to the petitioner as per his application dated 02.5.2024 for a normal period of ten years as per Rule

12(1) of the Passport Rules, 1980.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel accepting notice for the respondent.

3. The case of the petitioner is as follows:

The petitioner is an Indian citizen by birth. He is a senior citizen and is a B.Com graduate. He also served in Dubai for several years. He possessed an Indian passport and it had validity upto 13.10.2024. When the passport was about to expire, the petitioner made an application to the respondent on 02.5.2024 for its renewal. According to the petitioner, his application is under review at the Regional Passport Office for the past 23 months. Hence the writ petition.

4. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

5. It is not known as to whether any criminal case is pending against the petitioner. Even if it is so, the Hon’ble First Bench of this Court in the decision in Regional Passport Officer Vs. Samsudeen Mohamed Salih [W.A.No.902 of 2023 dated 02.6.2023] held that mere pendency of the criminal case is not a bar for renewal of the passport and that if the person wants to travel abroad, he has to get necessary permission from the Court where the criminal case is pending.

6. The issue is squarely covered by the said decision of this Court.

This Court perused the said judgment and the relevant paragraphs are extracted as hereunder:

''5. A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, in the case of Abbas Hatimbhai Kagalwala v. State of Maharashtra and another, 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 1992 , to which one of us (S.V.Gangapurwala, CJ.) was a party, has followed the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu, supra and directed the respondent therein to process the application of the petitioner for renewal of the passport.

6. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the first respondent cannot travel abroad without the permission of the Court where the criminal case is pending, would not be an impediment for the passport authority to consider the application for renewal of the passport. No doubt, if the first respondent has to travel abroad and the criminal case is pending, then unless the Magistrate or the Sessions Court where the criminal case is pending permits the first respondent to travel abroad, he cannot travel abroad.

7. In the light of the above, we pass the following order:

(i) The writ appellant shall process the application of the first respondent for renewal of passport without insisting for permission of the Court, where a criminal case is pending against the first respondent. If the first respondent is travelling abroad, then the first respondent would be required to seek permission from the Court where the criminal case is pending.

(ii) Decision shall be taken as above, within one month.''

7. In the passport application form dated 02.5.2024, a copy of which is enclosed along with the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition, the petitioner gave a self declaration that he has not been charged with criminal proceedings nor is there any arrest warrant or summon pending before any court of law in India against him and that during the five years immediately preceding the date of the present application, he has not been convicted by any court of law in India for any criminal offence and sentenced to imprisonment for two years or more.

8. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:

''(i) The respondent is directed to process the application of the petitioner without insisting the permission of the Court where the criminal case, if any, is pending against the petitioner and a decision shall be taken as above