Allahabad High Court
Tarun Kumar vs State Of U.P. on 19 May, 2025
Author: Saurabh Srivastava
Bench: Saurabh Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:83936
Court No. - 74
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 33911 of 2024
Applicant :- Tarun Kumar
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Akhilesh Srivastava,Saksham Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Prem Narayan Rai
Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Prem Narayan Rai, learned counsel for Union of India.
2. By means of the instant application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicant has sought quashing of the order dated 15.04.2024 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Buddh Nagar by which application dated 28.03.2024 moved by applicant for renewal of his passport in Case Crime No.959 of 2023, under Section 420, 120-B, 34 IPC and Section 66-D of I.T. Act, P.S. Bisrakh, District Gautam Budh Nagar, has been rejected.
3. Brief facts of the case are that an FIR was lodged against applicant on dated 18.11.2023 which was registered as Case Crime No.959 of 2013, under Section 420, 120-B, 34 IPC and Section 66-D of I.T. Act wherein applicant has already been released on bail by Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 01.02.2024. Meanwhile, applicant filed an application on dated 28.03.2024 before learned court concerned for renewal of his passport since the same was going to expired on 16.04.2023 which was rejected by learned concerned court vide impugned order dated 15.04.2024.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that as per aforesaid notification dated 25.08.1993, the impugned order dated 15.04.2024 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar, on its face appears to be passed without application of judicial mind and without considering the aforesaid notification and as such, the impugned order is liable to be quashed. Learned counsel for applicant further submitted that mere pendency of a criminal case against applicant wherein he has already been released on bail by Coordinate Bench of this Court, cannot be a ground for rejection of his application preferred for renewal of passport.
5. The notification of Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi dated 25.08.1993, is being quoted hereunder:-
"G.S.R. 570(E).--In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of Section 22 of the Passports Act 1967 (15 of 1967) and in supersession of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of External Affairs No. G.S.R. 298(E), dated the 14th April, 1976, the Central Government, being of the opinion that it is necessary in public interest to do so, hereby exempts citizens of India against whom proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by them are pending before a criminal court in India and who produce orders from the court concerned permitting them to depart from India, from the operation of the provisions of Clause (f) of sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the said Act, subject to the following conditions, namely:-
(a) the passport to be issued to every such citizen shall be issued -
(i) for the period specified in order of the court referred to above, if the court specified a period for which the passport has to be issued; or
(ii) if no period either for the issue of the passport for the travel abroad is specified in such order, the passport shall be issued for a period of one year;
(iii) if such order gives permission to travel abroad for a period less than one year, but does not specify the period of validity of the passport, the passport shall be issued for one year; or
(iv) if such order gives permission to travel abroad for a period exceeding one year, and does not specify the validity of the passport, then the passport shall be issued for the period of travel abroad specified in the order;
(b) any passport issued in terms of (a)(ii) and (a)(iii) above can be further renewed fr one year at a time, provided the applicant has not travelled abroad for the period sanctioned by the court; and provided further that, in the meantime, the order of the court is not cancelled or modified.
(c) any passport issued in terms of (a)(i) above can be further renewed only on the basis of a fresh court order specifying a further period of validity of the passport or specifying a period for travel abroad;
(d) the said citizen shall give an undertaking in writing to the passport-issuing authority that he shall, if required by the court concerned, appear before it at any time during the continuance in force of the passport so issued.?"
6. Learned counsel for Union of India has placed notification of the Government of India dated 25.08.1993 (which has already been quoted above) and an Office Memorandum dated 10.10.2019 issued by the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi and submitted that there is no restriction to the learned trial court to direct for grant of permission for renewal of passport.
7. On due consideration to the arguments advanced, perusal of the record so also considering the Articles 19(1)(d) and 21 of the Constitution of India, Court is of the view that citizens of the country are entitled for the passport. Mere pendency of a criminal case could not be ground to deny passport facilities to applicant since applicant's right to personal liberty not only included applicant's right to travel abroad, but also applicant's right to possess or hold a passport.
8. In Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India (1978) AIR SC 597, Hon'ble the Apex Court has held that having passport is a fundamental right of the citizen of India and a citizen can not be deprived of such fundamental right. It is further observed that for issuance of passport a declaration has to be made by the applicant that the applicant has not been convicted by any Court of Law in India for any criminal offence and has not been sentenced to imprisonment for two years or more than two years with other relevant information. It is not in dispute that the applicant is not a previously convict.
9. Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid discussion made hereinabove, the impugned order dated 15.04.2024 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Buddh Nagar by which application dated 28.03.2024 moved by applicant for renewal of his passport in Case Crime No.959 of 2023, under Section 420, 120-B, 34 IPC and Section 66-D of I.T. Act, P.S. Bisrakh, District Gautam Budh Nagar, has been rejected, is hereby quashed.
10. The concerned Passport Officer, Regional Passport Office, Ghaziabad is hereby directed to re-new the passport of applicant in light of notification dated 25.08.1993, office memorandum dated 10.10.2019 as well as judgment in the case of Maneka Gandhi (supra).
11. Applicant is hereby directed to produce a certified copy of this order before concerned Passport Officer, Regional Passport Office, Ghaziabad.
12. The instant application is allowed, accordingly.
Order Date :- 19.5.2025
Vivek Kr.
