Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Farjand Ali, J.
Pradeep Kumar Sarwogi S/o Late Shri Heera Lal Sarwogi - Petitioner
Versus
Union Of India, Through Secretary, Ministry Of External Affairs, Government Of India, New Delhi - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 2358 of 2025
Decided On : 29-01-2026
Based on the provided legal document, the key legal principles and conclusions are as follows:
The pendency of criminal proceedings against an individual does not automatically bar the renewal of their passport, especially when the proceedings are stayed or no restriction has been imposed on possession of the passport (!) (!) .
The statutory scheme under the Passports Act, 1967, particularly Section 6(2)(f), allows for the refusal or deferment of passport issuance or renewal in cases where criminal proceedings are pending, but this restriction is purpose-oriented and not absolute. It aims to ensure the accused remains amenable to criminal jurisdiction, not to impose punitive or indefinite restrictions (!) (!) .
The distinction between possession of a passport and permission to travel abroad is fundamental. Possession of a valid passport is a civil right, and renewal of the passport does not automatically grant or imply permission to travel internationally, which remains under the control of the criminal court (!) (!) .
Judicial orders or conditions restricting travel, such as a stay on proceedings or specific court conditions, continue to regulate the individual's ability to travel, independent of passport renewal (!) (!) .
Administrative authorities are not required to seek prior permission or a ‘no objection’ from the criminal court for passport renewal when no such order exists, and insisting otherwise would be unsupported by law and could undermine the statutory scheme (!) (!) .
The order emphasizes that the mere pendency of criminal proceedings, particularly when proceedings are stayed, does not justify denying or delaying passport renewal, provided the individual is not convicted and no specific restrictions on possession are in place (!) (!) .
The validity period of the renewed passport should not be truncated or shortened without justified reason, especially considering the long duration of the criminal proceedings and the absence of any imminent risk or restriction on travel (!) .
The court's order clarifies that the petitioner is entitled to renewal of the passport for the full standard validity period, but prior permission from the criminal court must be obtained before any actual international travel (!) (!) .
This decision is specific to the facts of the case and does not limit the criminal court’s authority to impose conditions related to travel in accordance with law (!) .
The order concludes with the petitioner’s entitlement to passport renewal and clarifies that the renewal does not automatically entitle travel abroad; travel permission remains subject to criminal court approval (!) .
Please let me know if you require a detailed legal analysis or further assistance.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. personal freedom through travel is integral to liberty. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. petitioner faces criminal proceedings affecting passport renewal. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. arguments for and against challenging passport renewal process. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. court to review the true legal implications of passport law. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 5. section 6(2)(f) is not an absolute bar to passport renewal. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 6. possession vs. travel permissions are separate legal issues. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 7. writ court's role clarified amidst ongoing criminal proceedings. (Para 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 8. legal provisions don't justify automatic passport denial. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 9. writ petition allowed with specified conditions for passport renewal. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31) |
ORDER :
FARJAND ALI, J.
1. Lord Denning, M.R., in his work Freedom Under the Law (1949), described personal freedom as :
“the freedom of every law-abiding citizen to think what he will, to say what he will and to go where he will on his occasions without let or hindrance from any other person.”
The freedom to move and to travel, thus, lies at the heart of individual liberty. For such freedom to be real and not merely illusory, it must remain capable of exercise when the occasion arises, which necessarily presupposes that the citizen is in possession of the requisite travel credentials in advance. A liberty that can be exercised only after surmounting procedural or administrative impediments risks being rendered ineffective in practice.
2. In the constitutional framework, the freedom to move and to travel, though subject to regulation by law, forms an integral facet of personal liberty protected under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. While such freedom is not absolute, any regulatory restraint must remain grounded in law and proportionate to the object sought to be achieved, and cannot be permitted to assume the character of a punitive or indefinite restriction in the absence of adjudicated guilt. It is in this limited backdrop that the grievance raised in the present petition concerning renewal of the petitioner’s passport falls for consideration.
3. The petitioner is an accused in Criminal Regular Case No. 142/2017 pending before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Churu, arising out of allegations relating to an allegedly forged Will. The petitioner is alleged to be a signatory as a witness to the said Will and, on that basis, has been arrayed as an accused for offences including Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. It stands admitted on record that the petitioner has not been convicted in the said case or in any other criminal case.
4. The petitioner challenged the continuance of criminal proceedings against him by moving a Miscellaneous Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before this court. By order dated 27.02.2025 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Stay Petition No. 4988/2024, further proceedings in the aforesaid criminal case have been stayed qua the petitioner, and the said stay continues to operate.
5. The petitioner applied for renewal of passport before the competent Passport Authority. At the stage of consideration of the application, an objection was raised on account of pendency of a criminal case, and the petitioner was called upon to indicate whether the said proceedings had been disposed of. Since the criminal case is still pending, renewal of the passport did not proceed, leading to the filing of the present writ petition.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Himanshu Ranjan Singh Bhati submitted that the petitioner is facing trial in the criminal case but has not been convicted. He pointed out that by order dated 27.02.2025 passed by this Court, further proceedings in the criminal case have been stayed qua the petitioner and the said order continues to operate. He submitted that the petitioner applied only for renewal of his passport and is not seeking permission to travel ab
The court ruled that the renewal of a passport cannot be denied solely due to pending criminal proceedings, especially when such proceedings are stayed and no restraint is imposed by the trial court.
Pendency of criminal proceedings does not automatically bar passport renewal; restrictions on rights must be just and legal, emphasizing individual liberty under Article 21.
Pending criminal proceedings do not bar passport renewal; authorities to process per Act, rules, notifications without routine court NOC; ordinarily 10-year validity; travel permission separate from ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
