ORDER :

FARJAND ALI, J.

1. The instant criminal revision petition under Section 438 and 442 of the BNSS has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved of the order dated 07.11.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge, POCSO Cases, No.1, Jodhpur Metropolitan in Sessions Case No.20/2025, whereby the application moved by the petitioner seeking permission to go abroad for earning livelihood.

2. The petitioner is facing trial in connection with FIR No.167/2024 registered  at the Police Station Rajiv Gandhi Nagar, Jodhpur City for the offences under Section 354D, 363, 376(2)(N), 376(3) of the IPC and Section 3/4(ii), 5(L)/6 of the POCSO Act. After investigation, the challan has been filed against the petitioner and the trial is going on. The petitioner filed an application before the trial court seeking permission to go abroad, namely, to Japan, to earn his livelihood. The Learned trial court has rejected the said application, being aggrieved of which the petitioner has preferred the instant revision petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a skilled  worker by profession and has been gainfully employed in Japan for the last four to five years and was, in fact, working there even at the time of lodging of the present FIR. Immediately upon receiving information about the registration of the case, the petitioner voluntarily returned to India and surrendered before the learned trial court without being arrested, which conduct itself demonstrates his bona fides and respect for the process of law. It is further contended that the petitioner has not sought or obtained any fresh recruitment or employment during the pendency of the trial and is merely seeking permission to rejoin his existing employment, which he has been holding for a considerable period. Learned counsel submits that denial of permission to travel abroad would result in loss of livelihood to the petitioner and would seriously prejudice his right to livelihood guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, apart from causing irreparable hardship to his dependent family members. It is urged that the petitioner has never misused the liberty granted to him and there is no apprehension of his absconding or evading the trial. The petitioner undertakes that on each and every date of hearing, his learned counsel shall remain present before the trial court and he shall not raise any objection if the prosecution witnesses are examined and cross-examined in his absence. He further undertakes not to dispute his identity before the trial court on the ground of his absence and assures that he shall return to India whenever directed by the court and immediately upon being informed by his counsel. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner is willing to furnish adequate sureties, bonds and any other conditions that may be imposed by this Court or the trial court to secure his presence and to ensure the smooth progress of the trial. It is, therefore, contended that the impugned order has been passed in a mechanical manner without appreciating the aforesaid facts and circumstances, and the same deserves to be set aside in the interest of justice.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the revision petition and supported the order of the trial court.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on the record.

6. This Court has dealt with the similar issue in the case of Balkaran Singh v. State of Rajasthan, [S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 7824/2022] dated 21.11.2022. The relevant paragraphs of the order are being reproduced herein below:-

“It is significant to note here that the Passports Act, 1967 does not confer absolute power upon a citizen to obtain passport. Section 6(1) & (2) of the Act prescribe certain conditions/eventualities when the passport authority is required to turn down request to make an endorsement or issue passport which includes a condition when an applicant is an accused in a criminal case. Rel