[Cites 20, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Seikh Tajuddin vs State Of Odisha ... Opposite Party on 10 December, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.2583 of 2025,
CRLMC No.2630 of 2025,
CRLMC No.2631 of 2025,
CRLMC No.2635 of 2025,
CRLMC No.2638 of 2025,
CRLMC No.2639 of 2025,
CRLMC No.2641 of 2025,
CRLMC No.2643 of 2025,
CRLMC No.2644 of 2025,
&
CRLMC No.2646 of 2025
(Applications under Section 528 of B.N.S.S., 2023)
In CRLMC No.2583 of 2025
Seikh Tajuddin ... Petitioner
- Versus -
State of Odisha ... Opposite Party
In CRLMC No. 2630 of 2025
Seikh Tajuddin ... Petitioner
- Versus -
State of Odisha ... Opposite Party
In CRLMC No. 2631 of 2025
Seikh Tajuddin ... Petitioner
- Versus -
State of Odisha ... Opposite Party
Page 1 of 26.
In CRLMC No. 2635 of 2025
Seikh Tajuddin ... Petitioner
- Versus -
State of Odisha ... Opposite Party
In CRLMC No. 2638 of 2025
Seikh Tajuddin ... Petitioner
- Versus -
State of Odisha ... Opposite Party
In CRLMC No. 2639 of 2025
Seikh Tajuddin ... Petitioner
- Versus -
State of Odisha ... Opposite Party
In CRLMC No. 2641 of 2025
Seikh Tajuddin ... Petitioner
- Versus -
State of Odisha ... Opposite Party
In CRLMC No. 2643 of 2025
Seikh Tajuddin ... Petitioner
- Versus -
State of Odisha ... Opposite Party
In CRLMC No. 2644 of 2025
Seikh Tajuddin ... Petitioner
- Versus -
State of Odisha ... Opposite Party
Page 2 of 26.
In CRLMC No. 2646 of 2025
Seikh Tajuddin ... Petitioner
- Versus -
State of Odisha ... Opposite Party
Advocate(s) appeared in these cases:-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Petitioner ... M/s. Deepali Mahapatra & J. Panda
(In all cases)
For Opposite Party ... Mr. Udit Ranjan Jena,
(In all cases) Additional Government Advocate.
Mr. P.K. Parhi,
Deputy Solicitor General of India
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
____________________________________________________________
Date of hearing & judgment : 10th December, 2025
Aditya Kumar Mohapatra, J.
1. The present batch of applications have been filed by
a common Accused-Petitioner in all these cases under
Section 528 of B.N.S.S., 2023, which corresponds to
Section 482 of Cr.P.C., with a prayer to quash/set aside
the impugned order dated 06.03.2025, at Annexure-3 to
CRLMC No.2583 of 2025, passed by the learned
J.M.F.C. (Cog. Taking), Bhadrak in respect of G.R. Case
No.708 of 2017 and similar impugned orders passed by
the learned J.M.F.C. which are subject matter of
challenge in the above noted CRLMC applications
whereby the prayer of the Petitioner before learned
Magistrate for grant of NOC in favour of the Petitioner
for issuance of a passport to travel abroad has been
rejected.
2. Since all the above noted CRLMC applications have
been filed by a common accused in different G.R. cases
pertaining to a common incident that had taken place in
the year 2017, the nature of the relief sought for in all the
aforesaid applications is similar and the issue that is to be
decided by this Court in all the above noted applications
is identical in nature, all the above noted CRLMC
applications are taken up for hearing together and the
same are being disposed of by the following order.
3. Heard Ms. Deepali Mahapatra, learned counsel for
the petitioner; Mr. U.R. Jena, learned Additional
Government Advocate for the State-Opposite Party; Mr
P.K. Parhi, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India for
the Union of India. Perused application as well as the
documents filed along with CRLMC applications and the
impugned rejection orders.
4. Since all the CRLMC applications involve an
identical factual background and the nature of relief
sought for is similar, this Court takes up for consideration
the facts involved in CRLMC No.2583 of 2025 as the
lead matter in the present batch of CRLMC applications.
5. The Petitioner, who belongs to the Muslim
community, is a permanent resident of Bhadrak Town and
running his business there. In the year 2017, a communal
riot erupted in Bhadrak Town, as a result of which
extensive damage was caused to the properties belonging
to the persons of both the communities. Later, several
F.I.Rs were registered pertaining to the self-same
incident. In the present case, an F.I.R. was lodged before
the Purunabazar P.S. of Bhadrak District which was
registered as P.S. Case No.60 of 2017 for alleged
commission of offences punishable under Sections
147/148/294/454/427/395/436/153A/506/149 of I.P.C.
The F.I.R. was lodged initially against four named
accused persons and some other unknown accused
persons and the name of the Petitioner does not find place
in the F.I.R. The F.I.R. which was lodged by one Prasanta
Kumar Sahu on 10.04.2017, inter alia, alleges that on the
very same day at about 7.05 P.M. in the evening, while he
was preparing 'Chhatua' in his factory, accused persons
armed with weapons entered into the factory of the
Informant. The Informant was given a life threat and
asked to leave the place instantly. Thereafter, the
Informant ran away from his factory. Consequently, the
accused persons ransacked the factory premises and stole
away food articles which were stored in his factory.
Eventually, the factory premises was set on fire, as a
result of which, the Informant has sustained huge
financial loss. Accordingly, the F.I.R. was registered for
commission of offences as has been indicated
hereinabove.
6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at the outset,
contended that the Petitioner has been falsely implicated
in the present case and that he has no involvement in the
alleged rioting in Bhadrak that had taken place in the year
2017. She further contended that the Petitioner was
immediately released on bail and that multiple cases were
registered against the Petitioner are all triable by
Magistrate. It was also urged before this Court that the
Petitioner has a very good track record, except the cases
which were registered against him in the year 2017 for
alleged rioting in Bhadrak. She further contended that the
Petitioner, being a member of the Muslim community,
wants to go on pilgrimage to Macca, situated in Saudi
Arabia. In fact, it was contended that it is the pious duty
and dream of every Muslim to visit the shrine of Macca at
least once, which is also popularly known as HAJ among
the Muslim community members.
7. For the aforesaid purposes, the Petitioner is required
to travel to Saudi Arabia and, as such, he requires a
passport. Accordingly, the Petitioner applied for a
passport. Initially his application for passport was
rejected. Being aggrieved by the rejection order of his
passport application, the Petitioner earlier moved before
this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.3399 of 2025. This
Court, vide order dated 06.02.2025, disposed of the above
noted writ application with an observation that the
Notification of the Government of India bearing GSR
No.570(E) provides that a person, who desires to get a
passport and against whom there is a criminal case
pending, such person is required to obtain NOC
Certificate/clearance certificate from the court where the
matter is pending and, accordingly, the Petitioner was
granted liberty to move the trial court for grant of
NOC/clearance in terms of GSR No.570(E). Pursuant to
the order dated 06.02.2025 in W.P.(C) No.3399 of 2025,
the Petitioner approached the learned J.M.F.C.-I, Cog
Taking, Bhadrak by filing an application for grant of
NOC. In his application, the Petitioner had stated the
ground that he wants to perform HAJ rituals at Macca in
Saudi Arabia and that the right to hold a passport and
travel is a fundamental right guaranteed to every citizen
under the Constitution of India unless the Petitioner is
prevented by any legal authority. However, learned
J.M.F.C.-I, Cog Taking, Bhadrak, without considering the
prayer of the Petitioner in its proper perspective, rejected
the application in a mechanical manner, vide his order
dated 06.03.2025, by being heavily influenced by the fact
that several cases have pending against the present
Petitioner. Learned trial court has referred to the
Petitioner as a habitual offender. Being aggrieved by
such rejection of his prayer, the Petitioner has finally
approached this Court by filing the present application.
8. In course of her argument, learned counsel for the
Petitioner contended that the criminal cases which are
initiated against the Petitioner relate to the 2017 Bhadrak
riot, which is a single incident. Moreover, it was
emphatically argued that the Petitioner has no
involvement in such rioting. Besides, it was argued that
the Petitioner was on bail in all the above noted cases.
With regard to the finding of the learned trial court that
the Petitioner is a habitual offender, it was argued by the
learned counsel for the Petitioner that all the above noted
cases arises out of one incident. She further elaborated
that the Petitioner does not have any case before or after
the year 2017. During investigation also, the Petitioner
has not been shown as an absconder and he has fully
cooperated with the Investigating Officer. Thus, it was
argued that there exists no possibility of the Petitioner
absconding from justice.
9. She further contended that the Petitioner is a
permanent resident of Bhadrak Town having his
residence and business activities, and that the Petitioner
has nowhere to go except his home town Bhadrak. She
also laid emphasis on the fact that although the Petitioner
is on bail for last eight years, the trial has not yet
commenced and there is no allegation that the Petitioner
has ever misused the liberty granted to him. Since every
Muslim is required to go on a spiritual/religious journey
to Macca and such practice holds a profound significance
in Islam, it was argued that deprivation of such
opportunity would cause serious prejudice to the
Petitioner and that the same would also be discriminatory
in nature. Additionally it was argued that the right to
practice and promote one's own religion and faith is a
right guaranteed under Article 25 to 28 of the
Constitution of India. On such ground, learned counsel
for the Petitioner has assailed the impugned rejection
orders.
10. Per contra, learned counsel for the State contended
that the learned trial court has not committed any
illegality in rejecting the prayer of the Petitioner by virtue
of the impugned order dated 06.03.2025. Learned counsel
for the State at the beginning submitted that the Petitioner
is involved in a serious crime of rioting. It was also
contended that the Petitioner is involved in a series of
offences which is manifest from the record. Learned
counsel for the State further contended that the cases in
which the Petitioner has sought NOC were of the year
2017 and in the event the Petitioner is granted NOC for
grant of passport and, eventually leaves the country, the
same would cause serious impediment in the early
conclusion of the trials. He further alleges that the
Petitioner is a habitual offender as has been found by the
leaned trial court in its order dated 06.03.2025.
11. Learned counsel for the State, in course of his
argument, referred to the order of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Indrani Mukerjea V. Central Bureau of
Investigation & Anr. [Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.
No.17027/2024, disposed of on 12.02.2025). By referring
to the aforesaid order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court,
learned counsel for the State contended that the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has categorically declined to grant
permission to the Petitioner to travel abroad during
pendency of the criminal case. On such ground, leaned
counsel for the State contended that the learned trial court
has not committed any irregularity in rejecting the prayer
of the Petitioner. As such, it was argued that the present
applications, being devoid of merit, are liable to be
dismissed at the threshold.
12. Mr. P.K. Parhi, learned Deputy Solicitor General of
India, appearing on behalf of the Union of India has also
objected to grant of NOC to the Petitioner. He further
contended that looking at the criminal background of the
present Petitioner, he should not be permitted to travel
abroad.
13. During the course of his argument, learned Deputy
Solicitor General of India expressed his apprehension that
in the event the Petitioner is permitted to travel to Macca,
there is every likelihood that he might end up at some
place where there are high chances of him being
radicalized. He also expressed his apprehension with
regard to the fact that the Petitioner might not return to
India. On such ground, learned Deputy Solicitor General
of India vehemently opposed the application filed by the
Petitioner for grant of NOC for getting passport to travel
abroad.
14. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the
respective parties, on a careful examination of the
background facts, this Court found that it is not disputed
by the parties that the Petitioner has been implicated in
several cases of rioting of the year 2017 and, all those
cases relate to the Bhadrak riot. It is also not disputed
that although the case was registered in the year 2017,
however, till date the trial has not commenced. On
perusal of the affidavit filed by the State-Opposite Party
dated 10.12.2025, it appears that the Petitioner is involved
in two cases of Bhadrak Town P.S. and in sixteen cases of
Purunabazar P.S. Further, pursuant to the order dated
25.11.2025 of this Court, the IIC of Purunabazar P.S. has
stated in his affidavit dated 10.12.2025 that no case has
been registered against the Petitioner after 2017. The
relevant paragraph, i.e. paragraph-5 is extracted herein
below:-
"5. That, this Hon'ble Court vide order dtd.
25.11.2025 was pleased to direct that whether
any criminal antecedent is pending against the
petitioner after 2017. In obedience to this
Hon'ble Court's order verified the available
P.S. records and CCTNS portal and it is found
that after the year 2017 no FIR found registered
by name against the petitioner."
(emphasis supplied by Court)
15. Moreover, on a closer scrutiny, this Court found that
in most of the cases the Petitioner was not initially named
in the F.I.R., however, he has been implicated as an
accused at the subsequent stage of the investigation. All
these cases relate to the self-same incident, i.e. the riots in
Bhadrak that took place in the year 2017.
16. Furthermore, what is significant in the context of the
present case is that no F.I.R. has been registered against
the Petitioner after 2017, as is evident from paragraph-5
of the affidavit dated 10.12.2025. It is also a fact that in
none of the cases the trial has commenced.
17. In so far as the law relating to grant of passport is
concerned, the same is governed by the Notification of
the Government of India in GSR No.570(E). The said
Notification provides that to get a passport under the
Passport Act, a person against whom a criminal case is
pending is required to obtain NOC/Clearance from the
concerned court where the case is pending for trial. It is
only after getting such clearance that the passport
authorities will consider the passport application of an
accused who desires to travel abroad. In fact, the above
noted Notification provides for issuance of passport for a
temporary period subject to clearance/NOC by the trial
court. Taking into consideration the aforesaid GSR, a
coordinate Bench of this Court, while disposing of
W.P(C) No.3399 of 2025 filed by the Petitioner, granted
liberty to the Petitioner to move the concerned criminal
court seeking an order of No Objection.
18. In the present case, the Petitioner being aggrieved by
the order dated 06.03.2025, wherein his prayer for grant
of NOC was rejected, has approached this Court once
again by filing the present applications. In the rejection
order dated 06.03.2025, the learned trial court has
obviously referred to the GSR No.570(E) of the
Government of India. However, the prayer of the
Petitioner has been rejected on the ground that the
Petitioner is a habitual offender and that he has been
implicated as an accused in many cases which are
pending for trial. The learned trial court has also
expressed doubt regarding the fact that there is a distinct
possibility that the Petitioner might abscond in the event
he is permitted to travel abroad. Accordingly, the
application of the Petitioner has been rejected on the
ground of the nature and gravity of the offences alleged
against him, as well as the fact that the Petitioner is
having criminal antecedent.
19. On a perusal of the order relied upon by the learned
counsel for the State in the case of Indrani Mukerjea
(supra), this Court observes that the same is an order
rejecting the prayer of the Petitioner on the ground that
trial is on-going, and, that such trial involves an allegation
of a conspiracy of murder. As such, this Court is of the
view that the aforesaid order would not stand in the way
of the present Petitioner. No doubt, the Passport Act
which governs the field with regard to grant of passport
creates an embargo with regard to issuance of passport to
the persons who are having criminal antecedents.
However, the Government of India, vide Notification in
GSR No.570(E) dated 25.08.1993, provides that the
application for grant of passport can only be considered
provided the accused-applicant produces a clearance
certificate/NOC from the court where the trial is pending
against him. Thus, it is clear that the law does not create
an absolute embargo on the issue of a passport to an
accused who is facing trial.
20. With regard to the right of a person to hold a
passport, this Court would like to refer to the provision
under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Article 21
of the Constitution of India has been interpreted in the
case of Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India, reported in
1978 (1) SCC 248 and it has been categorically held that
right to hold a passport and travel is a fundamental right
and an individual cannot be prevented from traveling
abroad unless there exists a law that authorizes the State
to impose such a restriction lawfully. It would be
profitable to quote paragraph-5 of the aforesaid
judgment:-
"Thus, no person can be deprived of his right
to, go abroad unless there is a law made by the
State prescribing the procedure for so
depriving him and the deprivation is effected
strictly in accordance with such procedure. It
was for this reason, in order to comply with the
requirement of Article 21, that Parliament
enacted the Passports Act, 1967 for regulating
the right to go abroad. It is clear from the
provisions of the Passports, Act, 1967 that is
lays down the circumstances under which a
passport may be issued under which a passport
may be issued or refused or cancelled or
impounded and also prescribes a procedure for
doing so, but the question is whether that is
sufficient compliance with Article 21. Is the
prescription of some sort of procedure enough
or must the procedure comply with any
particular requirement? Obviously, procedure
cannot be arbitrary, unfair or unreasonable.
This indeed was conceded by the learned
Attorney General who with his usual candour
frankly stated that it was not possible for him to
contend that any procedure howsoever
arbitrary, oppressive or unjust may be
prescribed by the law."
21. It would also be apt to refer to a judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Venkata Siva Kumar
Yadhanapudi vs. Union of India, reported in 2024 SCC
Online TS 402, wherein it has been held that pendency of
a criminal case could not be a ground to deny passport
facilities to the petitioner since petitioner's right to
personal liberty not only includes the right to travel
abroad, but also the right to possess or hold a passport.
22. Likewise, our High Court, in Ashok Kumar Sipani
vs. Union of India and another (W.P.(C) No.30881 of
2022), while considering an identical issue has held that it
would be absurd to hold that pendency of criminal case,
as referred to in Section-6, would have a different
consequence than Section-10. It has also been held that
there is no absolute bar in the Act for issuing and
renewing the passport on the ground of pendency of
criminal case and, on a wholesome reading of the act, it
would imply that mere pendency of criminal case cannot,
in all cases, lead to impounding of the Passport.
23. A similar issue was also the subject matter of dispute
before a coordinate Bench of this Court in CRLMC
No.1460 of 2025 in the matter of Fakira Karna v. State
of Odisha, decided vide order dated 17.04.2025, wherein
learned coordinate Bench after taking into consideration
the judgments cited before him, has come to a conclusion
that there is no legal impediment in granting a passport to
a person having a criminal case pending against him.
Further, it has also been observed that the right to apply
for, hold and possess a passport, in itself, cannot be
arbitrarily denied or revoked merely on the ground that a
criminal case is pending, be it at the stage of investigation
or trial.
24. In view of the aforesaid analysis of the legal
position, further keeping in view the surrounding facts
and circumstances of the present case, this Court has no
hesitation in coming to a conclusion that the impugned
order dated 06.03.2025, at Annexure-3 to the CRLMC
No.2583 of 2025, passed by the learned J.M.F.C.-I, Cog
Taking, Bhadrak is unsustainable in law. It is the
considered view of this Court that the Learned J.M.F.C.-I,
Cog Taking, Bhadrak should have taken into
consideration the fact that even though the case is
pending since 2017, the trial has not commenced as of
now, which in itself no less than a punishment inflicted
on the Petitioner. Moreover, the Petitioner does not have
any criminal antecedent after the year 2017, as per the
affidavit filed by the IIC of Purunabazar P.S. Therefore,
the circumstances that are required to be considered in a
case of this nature are, as follows; (i) whether by grant of
NOC, the Petitioner would get a passport; (ii) whether
there is possibility that the Petitioner might abscond; (iii)
whether there is a possibility that the applicant might not
appear before the trial court, which would cause
unnecessary delay in conclusion of the trial; (iv) whether,
in an on-going trial the absence of the Petitioner would
interrupt the trial; (v) whether there exists any flight risk
regarding the Petitioner; (vi) whether the grant of passport
would pose a threat to national security.
25. The above are some of the grounds which are
required to be considered by the learned trial court while
considering an application for grant of NOC/clearance
certificate for issuance of the passport. Such factors have
not been taken into consideration in the present case by
the learned trial court while passing the impugned order
dated 06.03.2025. Therefore, this Court is of the view that
the learned trial court has definitely committed an error
which requires interference by this Court in exercise of its
inherent power to secure the ends of justice.
26. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 06.03.2025,
at Annexure-3 to CRLMC No.2583 of 2025, passed by
the learned J.M.F.C.-I (Cog Taking), Bhadrak, is hereby
quashed. Similarly, the impugned orders in connected
applications are also hereby quashed. Further, the matters
are remanded back to the learned trial court to consider
the application of the Petitioner and grant required
NOC/clearance certificate in terms of the Notification
vide GSR No.570(E), within a period of four weeks from
the date of production of a copy of this order. Learned
trial court shall do well to grant NOC/clearance for a
limited period of one year for issuance of passport to visit
only one country i.e. Saudi Arabia for pilgrimage (HAJ)
subject to Petitioner providing adequate property security
to be decided by the trial court.
27. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the
CRLMC applications stand allowed. However, there shall
be no order as to costs.
( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack.
The 10th December, 2025/ Debasis Aech, Secretary
