Pendency of a criminal investigation or case is not a valid ground to deny the renewal of a passport for its regular validity period (10 years), as the right to travel is a fundamental right and the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Order

The petitioner has challenged order dated 22.08.2025 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sardarsahar, District Churu in Criminal Misc. Criminal Case No.306/2025 titled as “State Vs. Kafiya Bano”, whereby the application filed by the petitioner seeking renewal of passport for a regular period of ten years as well as permission to go abroad has been rejected.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitoner’s son and his family is residing at Dubai and the petitioner needs to travel abroad to meet them, so also, to perform Hajj Yatra at Saudi Arabia, thus, the Passport Authorities be directed to renew her passport (which has expired on 04.02.2025) and the petitioner may be permitted to go abroad.

Counsel further submitted that the learned trial court only due to pendency of investigation in the FIR, wherein the petitioner is named accused, has rejected her application. Counsel for the petitioner submits that mere pendency of criminal case cannot be a ground to deny permission to go abroad either for his/her family purpose or to earn livelihood, as it clearly amount to breach of fundamental right of an individual. Counsel also argued that mere pendency of criminal case should not be an impediment for renewing passport for a regular period of ten years instead of renewal for one year.

Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon order passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in Abhayjeet Singh Vs. State (S.B. CrLMP No. 5870/2024), decided on 02.09.2024.

The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Abhayjeet Singh Vs. State (supra) has clearly laid down that pendency of a criminal case cannot be an impediment in renewing passport for a period of ten years. In fact, renewal for passport for one year creates unnecessary complication, and renewal for a longer duration does not prejudice case of either the State or the complainant. The Court has observed as under:-

“8. First and foremost, for ready reference relevant extract of Rule 12 of the Passport Rules, 1980 , is as below: “12. Duration of passports or travel documents. – (1) An ordinary passport for persons other than children below the age of 15 years, containing thirty-six pages or sixty pages shall be in force for a period of 10 years from the date of its issue….”

9. A plain reading of the aforementioned rule clearly establishes that a citizen is entitled to be issued a passport with a minimum validity of 10 years.

10. Trite law it is that right to travel is intrinsically contained in the right to earn a livelihood. Courts have consistently upheld this as a fundamental right, subject of course to reasonable restrictions. The petitioner, who is primarily a farmer cultivating 'Kinnu' in his orchards, exports some of his produce to Saudi Arabia and has established business relations there. He seeks to travel abroad to further these business interests.

11. It is also acknowledged position that a short-term passport validity poses practical difficulties in obtaining visas from certain countries. Whether the passport is valid for one year or ten years does not materially affect the allegations against the petitioner regarding potential absconding. Thus the renewal of his passport for the full 10-year duration would not in any case prejudice the respondent or the complainant.

12. Moreover, the petitioner has not been convicted of any offense; he is merely facing charges. Under the law, he is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The restrictions imposed on his passport validity appear to pre-emptively punish the petitioner, undermining the principle of presumption of innocence enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Denying a 10-year passport validity without cogent reasons amounts to an arbitrary restriction on this right and does not align with the principles of justice, equity, and fairness.

13. There is no substantive evidence or reasonable