Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
In cases where a criminal case is pending, the individual can approach the court for permission to travel abroad, and courts have generally allowed such applications, provided procedural safeguards are followed ["C.Sivasankaran vs Foreigner Regional Registration Officer (FRRO) Bureau of Immigration, Ministry of Home Affairs - Madras"], ["Punreddy Narender Reddy, vs The Union of India, - Telangana"], ["Pawan Kumar Rajbhar VS Union of India - Allahabad"].
Analysis and Conclusion:
References:- ["C.Sivasankaran vs Foreigner Regional Registration Officer (FRRO) Bureau of Immigration, Ministry of Home Affairs - Madras"]- ["SMT. KASTURI RAJUPETA vs UNION OF INDIA - Karnataka"]- ["Pathan Apser Hussen vs Bureau of Immigration Ministry of Home Affairs Government of India - Madras"]- ["Goverdhan Reddy Bobbili VS Union of India - Telangana"]- ["Konatham Dileep Reddy @ Konatham Dileep vs The State of Telangana - Telangana"]- ["Om Prakash S/o Sh. Sukhdev VS State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp - Rajasthan"]- ["Mehul Sukumaran vs Central Bureau of Investigation - Himachal Pradesh"]- ["Lokendra Singh S/o Shri Prayag Singh VS State of Rajasthan - Rajasthan"]- ["Karthik Parthiban vs Superintendent of Police Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) Bank Securities and Frauds Branch - Madras"]- ["Anantula Karunakar Reddy VS Union of India - Telangana"]- ["Thonda Ravi vs The Government of India - Telangana"]- ["Vosuru Sai Shankar vs Government of India - Telangana"]- ["Vosuru Sai Shankar vs Government of India - Telangana"]- ["Punreddy Narender Reddy, vs The Union of India, - Telangana"]- ["Pawan Kumar Rajbhar VS Union of India - Allahabad"]
Imagine facing a criminal charge in India but needing to travel abroad for work, family, or medical reasons. What is the law and procedure regarding the travel of a person abroad while he is involved in a criminal case pending before a court of law? This is a common concern for many, balancing personal liberty with legal obligations. In this post, we explore the legal framework, key rights, and practical steps under Indian law. Note: This is general information based on legal precedents and statutes; consult a lawyer for personalized advice.
The right to travel abroad is not absolute but is protected as part of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of IndiaMoosa Pattupara S/o. Pokker VS State Of Kerala - 2022 0 Supreme(Ker) 91Rehman Khan vs State of Rajasthan - 2025 0 Supreme(Raj) 427. Courts have repeatedly affirmed that this right cannot be curtailed arbitrarily. As held in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, any deprivation must follow a procedure established by law that is just, fair, and reasonable Sannith Reddy Mandhadi VS Union of India - 2024 0 Supreme(Telangana) 17.
Expression 'personal liberty' under Article 21 of Constitution of India has a wider amplitude which includes right to go abroad. A person cannot be deprived to this right except in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the law. Late Shri Shrigopal Bajoria VS Rajesh Kumar Sharma
The mere pendency of a criminal case does not automatically bar international travel or passport possession Moosa Pattupara S/o. Pokker VS State Of Kerala - 2022 0 Supreme(Ker) 91Rehman Khan vs State of Rajasthan - 2025 0 Supreme(Raj) 427. Courts emphasize the presumption of innocence until conviction.
The Passports Act, 1967 governs issuance, renewal, and impounding of passports. Key provisions include:
GSR No.570(E) (1993) clarifies that passports can be issued or renewed for up to one year (or as specified) even with pending cases, subject to court orders Moosa Pattupara S/o. Pokker VS State Of Kerala - 2022 0 Supreme(Ker) 91Rehman Khan vs State of Rajasthan - 2025 0 Supreme(Raj) 427.
In one case, the court ruled: The mere pendency of criminal cases against a person is not a ground to refuse renewal or demand surrender of a passport. Ganni Bhaskara Rao VS Union of India - 2022 Supreme(AP) 304. Another judgment noted: Mere registration of a crime does not invoke either S.6 or S.10 of the Passports Act. Siju, S/o. Johny VS Regional passport officer - 2021 Supreme(Ker) 708.
Pending proceedings alone do not justify passport refusal or travel bans. Courts have held:
For instance, in a writ petition, the court directed passport issuance when no active court proceedings existed, affirming: The right to travel abroad is a fundamental right, and the denial of a passport based on a non-pending criminal case is unconstitutional. Kadiyala Sudhakar Naidu VS Union Of India - 2024 Supreme(AP) 370.
While no automatic bar exists, practical steps are essential:
Courts balance personal liberty with prosecution interests. In a money laundering case, permission was granted for business travel to Singapore and Dubai with sureties: Court is required to draw balance between right of petitioner to travel abroad and also right of prosecution to duly prosecute petitioner. Late Shri Shrigopal Bajoria VS Rajesh Kumar Sharma.
Another ruling stated: The requirement of law is that if there is a criminal case pending, one is entitled to travel only with the permission of the court before which the case is pending. Siju, S/o. Johny VS Regional passport officer - 2021 Supreme(Ker) 708.
For renewals without travel intent: The petitioner is seeking only renewal of his passport... if the petitioner is intending to travel abroad, he has to approach trial Court. Parvez Mohammad Abdul VS Union of India - 2022 Supreme(Telangana) 523.
Travel rights may be restricted in specific scenarios:
Lookout circulars must be fair: The fundamental right to travel overseas is guaranteed under Article 21... issuance of lookout circulars should be fair and reasonable, especially in cases where individuals are not involved in heinous crimes. Balamurugan VS Superintendent of Police, Thanjavur District, Thanjavur - 2018 Supreme(Mad) 1993. In one case, a circular was kept in abeyance for employment abroad Balamurugan VS Superintendent of Police, Thanjavur District, Thanjavur - 2018 Supreme(Mad) 1993.
Even assuming that the State Government had vital information... it is the Passport Authority alone who could prevent a person from going abroad. Balamurugan VS Superintendent of Police, Thanjavur District, Thanjavur - 2018 Supreme(Mad) 1993.
To navigate this:
Authorities must act procedurally: Restrictions must be based on legal provisions and court orders, not arbitrary decisions. Rehman Khan vs State of Rajasthan - 2025 0 Supreme(Raj) 427.
Facing a similar situation? Approach the relevant court promptly. This overview draws from established precedents like those in Moosa Pattupara S/o. Pokker VS State Of Kerala - 2022 0 Supreme(Ker) 91, Rehman Khan vs State of Rajasthan - 2025 0 Supreme(Raj) 427, and others—always verify with legal counsel for your case.
Disclaimer: Laws evolve, and outcomes depend on facts. This is not legal advice.
#TravelAbroadIndia, #PendingCriminalCase, #PassportRights
e) Petitioner shall not be entitled to travel abroad on dates when his presence in the court is required for any specific purpose by the court, unless he obtains necessary leave as per the applicable procedure law. ... from the court for his travel abroad every time?
, only on the ground that a criminal case is pending. ... However, justice of the case warrants a stipulation by this Court that petitioner shall not travel abroad without 13 passport/travel abroad. ... In the case of MANEKA GANDHI, supra while deliberating the right to travel abroad said: <&Thus, no person can be deprived of his right to go ab....
To require any relative or a business associate of the accused person concerned who is a frequent traveller abroad with an active Indian passport, (the number of such foreign travel may vary from case to case, and the Court may have to satisfy itself based on each particular case) to provide surety for ... This will ensure that a procedure established by law will be in place to impose just restrictions on an accused person’s right t....
Therefore, the mere fact that a criminal case is pending against the person is not a ground to conclude that he cannot possess or hold a passport. ... The Apex Court in Menaka Gandhi vs Union of India reported in 1978 (1) SCC 248, held that no person can be deprived of his right to go abroad unless there is a law enabling the State to do so and such law contains fair, reasonable and just procedure. ... This Notific....
I n the case of E.V.Perumal Samy Reddy v State, reported in 2013 SCC online Mad 4092, it is observed as under: “9. It is basic that merely because a person is involved in a criminal case, he is not denude of his Fundamental Rights. ... Ramarathnam, Assistant Passport Officer held that the right to travel abroad falls within the scope of personal liberty enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of I ndia and that no person can be deprived of his....
A person cannot be deprived to this right except in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the law.11. ... This Court has dealt with the similar issue in the case of Balkaran Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan [S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 7824/2022] dated 21.11.2022. ... (ii) Right to travel is a part of “liberty” of which a citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law.” 5. In this view of the matter, the criminal mis....
A person cannot be deprived to this right except in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the law. 17. ... Counsel submits that the petitioner has a right to go aboard and he cannot be deprived of his right except in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the law. In submission of his contentions, he placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Smt. Maneka Gandhi v. ... He submits that no documents were submitted before the Trial #....
From now onwards, more than the CBI, the concern will be that of the Court to ensure that an accused person against whom a charge is framed or to be framed, but is allowed to travel abroad, returns to India, submit to our law and face the trial. ... Should the petitioner be given the leave to travel abroad? Is it a case of , 'To be or not to be', but still not a Shakespearean dilemma, as the Constitution shows the way to this court ....
In Maneka Gandhi versus Union of India and another , reported in (1978) 1 Supreme Court Cases 248, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that no person can be deprived of his right to go abroad, unless, there is a law enabling the State prescribing the procedure for so depriving ... Relevant portion of para-5 of the said judgment, reads as under: “5. ……...Thus, no person can be deprived of his right to go abroad unless there is a law....
(f) that proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant are pending before a criminal court in India. ... The trial Court vide order dated 14.11.2024 rejected the said application. Hence, this Criminal Misc. Petition. 3. This Court has dealt with the similar issue in the case of Balkaran Singh v. State of Rajasthan [S.B. Criminal Misc. (Pet.) ... All pending applications, if any, shall also sta....
The right to travel abroad is a fundamental right, and the denial of a passport based on a non-pending criminal case is unconstitutional. 1. This writ petition is filed claiming the following relief: “…to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus by declaring the action of Respondent No.2 in not issuing the passport to the petitioner on the ground that a criminal case is pending against the petitioner and directing the petitioner to obtain a permission from the Court where the criminal case is pending vide letter dated 19.09.20....
In view of the same, respondent No. 2 cannot deny or refuse to renew the passport of the petitioner. In the present writ petition, the petitioner is not seeking permission to travel abroad, and he is seeking only renewal of his passport. However, if the petitioner is intending to travel abroad, he has to approach trial Court in the aforesaid criminal cases and obtain permission for travelling abroad.
For the present there shall be an order directing the 2 respondent to retain the passport mentioned above to the petitioner. A reading of GSR 570(E), which is relied upon by the respondents also makes it clear, even if criminal cases are pending an accused can hold a passport and travel abroad with the permission of the Court. Therefore, this Court holds that the action of the respondents in seeking the return of the passport on the ground of adverse police report is not correct.
The requirement of law is that if there is a criminal case pending, one is entitled to travel only with the permission of the court before which the case is pending. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner is ineligible for travel facilities. There is no dispute to the fact that the pendency of a criminal case is not a reason which would render a person ineligible for grant of travel facilities in India. As far as the present case is concerned, the petitioner is permitted by the criminal court to go abroad to pursue his employment.
that since a criminal case is pending against the person he should not be allowed to proceed abroad, the action would be without any basis in law. Even assuming that the State Government had vital information which, if placed before the concerned Passport Officer, might even entail either impounding or revocation of the passport, it was open to the State Government to pass on that information to the concerned officer who may take action. It is the Passport Authority alone who could prevent a person from going abroad. Where a person holding valid passport was so prevented fr....
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
