[2026:RJ-JD:8486]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 1510/2024 Sukhjeevan Singh @ Chetan Singh S/o Shri Niranjan Singh, Aged About 61 Years, R/o Jat Colony, Ward No. 16, Near Surya Public School, 24 As -C, Gharsana, Anoopgarh, District Anoopgarh, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

1. Union Of India, Through The Principal Secretary, Ministry Of External Affairs, Passport Division, Government Of India, New Delhi.

2. The Director General Of Police, Government Of Rajasthan, Police Headquarters, Jaipur, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.

3. The In-Charge Officer, Passport Seva Kendra, Head Post Office, Opposite Income Tax Office, Sriganganagar, District Sriganganagar, 4. The Station House Officer, Police Station Gharsana, District Anoopgarh, Rajasthan.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Chaitanya Gahlot For Respondent(s) : Mr. Divyansh Thanvi for Mr. B.P. Bohra HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

12/02/2026

1. The present writ petition has been instituted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. The petitioner seeks issuance of a passport in his favour.

2. Briefly stated the facts necessary for disposal of the petition are that the petitioner was convicted by the learned Trial Court for offences under Sections 304 Part II, 324, and 323 read with Section 34 IPC. Challenging the conviction and sentence, he preferred S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 481/2011 (Chhinder Singh @ Chhinda Singh & Ors. v. State) before this Court on 23.06.2011. During pendency of the appeal, the sentence was suspended and he was enlarged on bail. The appeal remains pending for final adjudication.

2.1. It is submitted that since suspension of sentence, the petitioner has maintained an unblemished record for more than a decade. No criminal case or adverse report has been registered against him, and he has adhered to all conditions of bail without misuse of liberty.

2.2. The petitioner’s son has been residing in Newfoundland, Canada, since 2018 along with his family. Owing to prolonged separation, the petitioner and his wife, being elderly parents, intend to visit their son and grandchildren. Thus, the petitioner applied for issuance of a passport on 02.04.2024 and completed all requisite formalities. During police verification, it was reported that his criminal appeal is pending; however, no other adverse material was found. Despite this, the passport has neither been issued nor formally refused. The petitioner has not been served with any written or reasoned order, and has only been orally informed that pendency of the appeal is an impediment. Aggrieved by such inaction and absence of a speaking order, the petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court by way of filing the instant petition.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties at length and have meticulously perused the material available on record.

3.1. It is an undisputed position that the petitioner stands convicted by the learned Trial Court for the offences in question and that the appeal preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence is presently pending adjudication before this Court. The appeal was duly admitted, and by order dated 23.06.2011, this Court was pleased to suspend the substantive sentence awarded to the petitioner. Consequently, the petitioner has remained on bail during the pendency of the appeal.

3.2. The very act of admission of the appeal signifies that this Court has found the matter worthy of judicial scrutiny. The correctness, legality, and propriety of the findings of guilt recorded by the Trial Court, as well as the sustainability of the conviction, are sub judice and await authoritative determination. The conviction, therefore, though operative, has not attained finality.

3.3. The issue that arises for consideration is whether mere pendency of a criminal appeal, coupled with suspension of sentence, constitutes a legal impediment to issuance