Mere pendency of a criminal case does not bar the issuance or renewal of a passport, provided the applicant obtains specific judicial permission before travelling abroad.

ORDER

This petition has been filed seeking a direction to the 1st respondent to consider the representation letter dated 17.03.2026 and issue the passport bearing file No.CB1075246739425.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that he made application on 17.03.2026 for issuance of new passport and the same was refused on the ground that a criminal case is pending against the petitioner in Cr.No.168 of 2025 for offences under Section 189(2) and 126(2) of BNSS. Hence, the present petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the issue involved in the present Writ petition is no longer res integra and the similar issue has already been decided by the Hon'ble First Bench of this Court in WA. No.902/2023 dated 02.06.2023 wherein this Court held that mere pendency of the criminal case is not a bar for renewal of the passport. If the person wants to travel abroad, he has to get necessary permission from the Court, where the criminal case is pending.

4. The learned counsel for the first respondent and the learned Government Advocate for the second respondent submitted that since a criminal case is pending, the police verification report was marked as adverse and therefore, the passport renewal was refused.

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

6. The issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon’ble First Bench in W.A.No.902/2023 dated 02.06.2023.

7. This Court perused the judgment passed by this Court and the relevant paragraphs are extracted herein;

''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.''

8. Since the present issue is also one and the similar, therefore, following the said Judgment of this Court, the following orders are passed:

''(i) The first respondent is directed to process the application of the petitioner without insisting the permission of the Court, where the criminal case is pending, if any, against the petitioner and decision shall be taken as above, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; and (ii) It is made clear that if the petitioner intends to travel abro