Rajasthan High Court Unlocks Passport Renewal Despite 23 Pending Fraud Cases: A Victory for Travel Rights

In a significant ruling emphasizing fundamental rights over mere pendency of cases, the Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur has directed the renewal of a passport for Surendra Pal Singh Sahni, a 66-year-old Kota resident facing 23 criminal cases, none of which have resulted in conviction. Justice Chandra Prakash Shrimali quashed a trial court order impounding the passport, affirming that ongoing probes alone cannot curtail the right to travel abroad under Article 21 of the Constitution. This decision, delivered on April 15, 2026, in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 8733/2024 , aligns with precedents protecting personal liberty.

From Fraud FIR to Travel Ban: The Petitioner's Predicament

The saga began with FIR No. 136/2022 at Police Station Kunhari, Kota City, alleging cheating, criminal breach of trust, forgery, and criminal conspiracy under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, and 120B IPC against Sahni (also known as Vijay) and others. The Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Kota, in Case No. 8308/2023 ( State vs. Surendra Kumar Singh @ Vijay & Ors. ), rejected Sahni's plea for passport renewal on April 8, 2024, citing the 23 pending cases—mostly similar economic offences—as grounds under the Passports Act, 1967.

Sahni, whose son and daughter reside abroad, sought renewal of his passport (No. B-6021432) to visit family. Arguing no flight risk or prior convictions, he invoked Section 528 CrPC to challenge the CJM's order before the High Court.

Petitioner's Plea: Liberty Trumps Pending Probes

Sahni's counsel, Messrs. Suresh Kumar Sahni and Ram Mohan Sharma, contended that the 23 cases were all pending trials with no convictions, rendering impoundment unjust. They stressed Sahni's age, family abroad, and the lack of any lookout circular or arrest warrant. Key precedents cited included:

  • Sannith Reddy Mandhadi vs. Union of India (2024 SCC OnLine TS 767): Pendency alone, absent conviction for moral turpitude with 2+ years' sentence, cannot bar renewal.
  • Rajasthan HC orders like Balkaran Singh vs. State (2022), Anil Wadhwa vs. State (2023), and Nareshant Sharma vs. State (2021), granting similar reliefs.

They highlighted the 1993 notification (GSR 570(E)) exempting applicants with court permission from Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, which bars issuance if criminal proceedings are pending.

Public Prosecutor Onkar Singh Rajpurohit conceded no convictions but initially supported the trial court, though ultimately found no bar to renewal.

Court's Deep Dive: No Conviction, No Chains on Travel

Justice Shrimali meticulously parsed the Passports Act. Section 6(2)(f) allows refusal for pending proceedings, but the 1993 exemption permits issuance with court orders, limited by specified periods. Drawing from Supreme Court wisdom:

  • Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu (cited in Sannith Reddy ): Refusal only for recent convictions involving moral turpitude.
  • Sumit Mehta vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2013) 15 SCC 570: Accused presumed innocent, entitled to Article 21 liberties.
  • Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248: Travel rights demand fair procedure, not arbitrary deprivation.
  • Satish Chandra Verma vs. Union of India (2019 SCC OnLine SC 2048): Travel abroad nurtures personal freedoms.

The court noted all 23 cases mirror the current fraud allegations but remain unresolved, with zero convictions. Impounding without more violates Article 21. Initial media reports, like "Rajasthan High Court Permits Passport Renewal Despite 23 Pending Criminal Cases," captured the buzz around this liberty-affirming stance.

Key Observations from the Bench

"vkijkf/kd izdj.k yafcr jgus ds vk/kkj ij ikliksVZ uohuhdj.k dks jksdk tkdj O;fFkr dks fons'k tkus ds vf/kdkj ls jksduk Hkkjrh; lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 21 esa of.kZr izko/kkuksa dk mYya?ku gSA"
(Pending criminal cases do not justify blocking passport renewal and denying the right to travel abroad, violating Article 21.)

"fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk ;kph@vfHk;qDr dh vksj ls ikliksVZ uohuhdj.k gsrq izLrqr izkFkZuk i= vLohdkj dj [kkfjt fd;k x;k gSA"
(Trial court wrongly rejected the renewal application based on pending cases.)

"bl laca/k esa ikliksVZ vf/kfu;e] 1967 dh /kkjk 6¼2½ dks ;gka mYysf[kr fd;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr gksxk..."
(Quoting Section 6(2) grounds, emphasizing no conviction under (e) and exemption for (f).)

"The law presumes an accused to be innocent till his guilt is proved." ( Sumit Mehta , adopted by court).

Passport Freed: 10-Year Renewal Ordered

The High Court allowed the petition, set aside the CJM's April 8, 2024 order, and mandated: "izR;FkhZ dks 30 fnol ds Hkhrj ;kph dk ikliksVZ 10 o" kZ ds fy, uohuhd`r fd, tkus dk vkns'k fn;k tkosA" Passport authorities must process Sahni's fresh application under Section 5 within 30 days, issuing a 10-year renewal.

This ruling signals to trial courts and passport offices: pendency without conviction isn't enough to clip wings. For accused in protracted economic crime probes, especially seniors with family ties abroad, it opens doors to travel—bolstering innocence presumption and procedural fairness in future cases.