Bombay High Court
Vilas S/O Manoharrao Tayade vs State Of Maharashtra, Through Deputy ... on 6 November, 2025
1 appa-913.25
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, AT NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APPA) NO. 913 OF 2025
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 67 OF 2016
( Vilas s/o Manoharrao Tayade ..vs.. State of Maharashtra, through Dy.S.P., CBI ACB, Nagpur and
another )
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders of directions
and Registrar's orders
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. J.D. Bastian, Counsel for the appellant,
Ms. P.K. Sathianathan, Special PP for respondent No.1,
Mr. S.A. Chaudhari, Counsel for respondent No. 2.
CORAM : NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, J.
DATE : 06-11-2025
The present application has been filed challenging the
communication dated 28.10.2025 issued by the Regional
Passport Office, Nagpur, whereby objections were raised to the
renewal of the applicant's passport.
2. The applicant has preferred an appeal challenging the
judgment and order dated 02.02.2016 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha in Special (ACB) Case No. 2
of 2006, convicting him for the offence punishable under
Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 and sentencing him to suffer rigorous
imprisonment for two and a half years and to pay a total fine of
Rs. 40,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one
month. This Court, by order dated 02.03.2016, has suspended
the substantive sentence imposed by the Trial Court.
2 appa-913.25
3. The applicant thereafter applied to the Regional Passport
Office, Nagpur for renewal of his passport vide Passport
Application No. 1076072974425 dated 28.10.2025. The said
Authority raised objections to the renewal on the ground that
Criminal Appeal No. 67 of 2016 under the Prevention of
Corruption Act is pending before this Court. Invoking the
provisions of Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967, the
Authority proposed to refuse the renewal of the applicant's
passport.
4. Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and the
learned Counsel for the respondents.
5. The learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the
impugned communication has been issued mechanically and
without due consideration of binding judicial precedents.
Reliance is placed on the decisions of this Court (Aurangabad
Bench) in Criminal Application No. 1695 of 2025 and Criminal
Application No. 1472 of 2025, as well as on the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu v.
Central Bureau of Investigation, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 3549, to
contend that mere pendency of criminal proceedings or appeal
cannot, by itself, be a ground to deny passport renewal when the
sentence stands suspended.
6. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the Union of
India supported the impugned communication, contending that
under Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967, the Passport
Authority is empowered to refuse to issue or renew a passport
when criminal proceedings are pending before a court in India.
3 appa-913.25
7. The short question that arises for consideration is
whether the Passport Authority was justified in refusing to
renew the passport of the applicant solely on the ground of
pendency of the criminal appeal before this Court, relying on
Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967. For ready reference,
the relevant provision is reproduced below:
"Section 6 - Refusal of passports, travel documents, etc.
(2) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the passport
authority shall refuse to issue a passport or travel
document for visiting any foreign country on any one or
more of the following grounds, and on no other ground,
namely:
...
(f) that proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have
been committed by the applicant are pending before a
criminal court in India;
..."
8. The right to travel abroad forms an intrinsic part of the
personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution
of India. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vangala Kasturi
Rangacharyulu (supra) has held that once the sentence imposed
by a trial Court has been suspended during the pendency of
appeal, the pendency of such appeal cannot, by itself, be a valid
ground to deny renewal of passport facilities. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu
(supra) has observed in paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 thus :
"8. Section 6.2(f) relates to a situation where the
applicant is facing trial in a criminal court.
9. Admittedly, at present, the conviction of the
appellant stands still the disposal of the criminal appeal.
4 appa-913.25
The sentence which he has to undergo is for a period of
one year. The passport authority cannot refuse the
renewal of the passport on the ground of pendency of the
criminal appeal.
10. The passport authority is directed to renew the
passport of the applicant without raising the objection
relating to the pendency of the criminal appeal in this
Court. Subject to the other conditions being fulfilled, the
Interlocutory Application stands disposed of."
9. In the present case, it is undisputed that the applicant's
sentence stands suspended by the order of this Court dated
02.03.2016, and the appeal is still pending adjudication. In view
of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the refusal
by the Regional Passport Office, Nagpur, to renew the
applicant's passport solely on account of pendency of the appeal
is unsustainable in law.
10. Accordingly, the communication dated 28.10.2025 issued
by the Regional Passport Office, Nagpur is hereby quashed and
set aside. The Regional Passport Office, Nagpur, is directed to
reconsider the applicant's request for renewal of passport in the
light of this order and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu (supra).
11. The Regional Passport Office, Nagpur, shall process the
applicant's renewal application and pass appropriate orders in
accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the
date of receipt of this order, subject to fulfillment of all
administrative and procedural requirements.
5 appa-913.25
The application stands disposed of accordingly. No order as to
costs.
(NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, J.)
adgokar
Signed by: MR. P.M. ADGOKAR
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 06/11/2025 17:33:32
