HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 1992/2024

1. Maga Ram S/o Nanu Ram, Aged About 65 Years, Ratau Tehsil Ladnun Distt. Nagaur.

2. Siya Ram S/o Nanu Ram, Aged About 45 Years, Ratau Tehsil Ladnun Distt. Nagaur.

3. Lachhi Ram S/o Mota Ram, Aged About 50 Years, Ratau Tehsil Ladnun Distt. Nagaur.

4. Kailash S/o Hanuman Ram, Aged About 30 Years, Ratau Tehsil Ladnun Distt. Nagaur. (Applicant)

5. Om Prakash S/o Sukha Ram, Aged About 42 Years, Ratau Tehsil Ladnun Distt. Nagaur.

6. Dala Ram S/o Bhanwara Ram, Aged About 27 Years, Ratau Tehsil Ladnun Distt. Nagaur.

7. Panna Ram S/o Lala Ram, Aged About 36 Years, Ratau Tehsil Ladnun Distt. Nagaur.

----Appellants Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Talat Bari For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shrawan Singh Rathore, DyGA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

29/07/2025

1. The instant appeal was preferred by the appellants being aggrieved of the judgment dated 22.11.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ladnun, District Nagaur in Sessions Case No.07/2014, whereby the appellants were convicted and sentenced under the penal provisions of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The matter has come up on an application preferred on behalf of the appellant No.4 Kailash S/o Hanumana ram, who shall hereafter be referred to as ‘the applicant’, seeking permission for issuance of passport. The applicant vide the aforesaid judgment was convicted for the offences under Sections 325 and 323 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 2 years and 6 months respectively for the said offences.

3. It is averred in the application that the applicant is a skilled labour and has to go out of India for earning his livelihood and when he applied for passport, he was informed that he would be required to seek permission from the court for issuance of passport. It is further averred that the sentence awarded to the appellant has already been suspended by this court and he is on bail and though he has a strong arguable case, looking to the voluminous pendency of cases, the chances of early hearing of the appeal are very bleak and it may take years before the appeal is ripe for hearing and during this period, the appellant cannot be deprived from his right to earn livelihood which is an integral part of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application contending that the passport authority has the power to refuse issuance of the passport in view of the pendency of the criminal appeal filed by the applicant and no interference is called for in the matter.

5. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record.

6. The applicant is stated to be a skilled labour and wishes to go abroad for earning his livelihood, which is essential for his and his family’s sustenance. When he approached the passport authorities for issuance of a passport, he was informed that due to the pendency of a criminal appeal, he is required to obtain prior permission from the court concerned, hence, he has approached this court for granting permission for issuance of passport. The maximum sentence awarded the applicant is of 2 years and the same has been suspended and he has been granted bail. The appeal has already been admitted for hearing. The appeal being pending adjudication, the principle of presumption of innocence applies. Denial of passport on mere pendency of appeal amounts to pre-trial punishment. The right to livelihood is a facet of the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Preventing the applicant from pursuing employment opportunities abroad effectively violates his fundamental right to live with dignity. Due to voluminous pendency of cases, early hearing of the appeal is not a seeming fate and the applicant cannot be made to suffer indefinitely by being deprived of the means to earn his liveliho