Order

The present criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed seeking permission for renewal of the passport.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has applied for renewal of his passport; however, the Passport Authority, vide order dated 24.02.2026, has directed the petitioner to obtain permission from the Court in view of the pending criminal case.

It is further submitted that since a criminal case is pending against the petitioner, he approached the learned trial Court; however, as no charge-sheet has been filed to date, his application was not entertained. Hence, the present criminal miscellaneous petition has been preferred before this Court seeking permission for renewal of the passport in connection with FIR No. 304/2022 registered against the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the FIR was registered in the year 2022 under Section 420 IPC and the investigation is still pending, with no final report having been filed.

It is further submitted that the petitioner is a doctor and is required to travel abroad to attend conferences; therefore, renewal of the passport is necessary. It is also prayed that a specific direction be issued for renewal of the passport for a period exceeding one year, as in the absence of such direction, the Passport Authorities renew the passport only for one year due to the pendency of the criminal case, which causes difficulty in obtaining visas and undertaking international travel.

Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 submits that, in view of the notification dated 25.08.1993, if no specific period is mentioned by the Court, the passport is ordinarily renewed only for one year. However, it is submitted that the Passport Authority shall act in accordance with any specific direction issued by this Court.

In such circumstances, the apprehension of the petitioner is justified that in absence of a specified time frame, the renewal authority will renew the passport only for one year, as per the circular. The Coordinate 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 the passport for a period of ten years. In fact, renewal for one year creates unnecessary complications, and renewal for a longer duration does not prejudice the 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