Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Kump Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:41707) on 10 October, 2024
[2024:RJ-JD:41707]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 6931/2024
Kump Singh S/o Shri Bhanwar Singh, Aged About 29 Years, Moti
Singh Ki Dhani Chowk, Pokran Distt. Jaisalmer.
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jaswant Suthar.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Rajpurohit, P.P.
Mr. Hanuman Prajapat, AGA.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Order (Oral)
10/10/2024
1. Petitioner herein is aggrieved by an order dated 03.09.2024
passed by learned Niyayadhikari, Gram Niyayalaya, Sankda
Headquarter Pokran, District jaisalmer, in Criminal Original Case
No.81/2023, whereby his application for grant of NOC so as to
seek renewal of passport was dismissed.
2. On a Court query, it transpires that the petitioner is an under
trial for alleged offences under Sections 341 and 323 of IPC.
3. One Padam Singh alleged inter alia that on 10.09.2023,
there was exchange of heated words with Vijay Singh, and in their
aggression, petitioner and one Uttam Singh assaulted him. On the
basis of the above complaint, the SHO of P.S. Sankda, District
Jaisalmer, registered FIR No. 0071/2023 for the offenses under
sections 341 and 323 IPC . Charge-sheet has been filed and the
case is pending trial.
3.1 The petitioner holds Passport No. M0071182, which was
issued on 14.07.2024 and was valid until 13.07.2024.
[2024:RJ-JD:41707] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-6931/2024]
3.2 The petitioner submitted an application for the renewal of his
passport at the Regional Passport Office, Jaipur, on 26.06.2024.
3.3 Upon receiving an adverse police verification report
indicating that petitioner is an under trial, the Regional Passport
Office, Jaipur, issued a communication dated 11.07.2024 asking
for an NOC from prosecution.
3.4 The learned trial court, via order dated 03.09.2024, rejected
the application seeking NOC. Hence, this petition.
4. Heard.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that learned trial
court has grossly erred in rejecting the application of the
petitioner for renewal of the passport. The passport authority is
not renewing his passport without the appropriate order of the
trial Court. Hence the instant petition.
5. Before adverting to the merits of the case herein, reference
may first be had to a judgment / order dated 02.09.2024 of this
Court rendered in some what similar circumstances in case title
Abhayjeet singh Vs. State of Rajasthan1, same is since
relevant for the purpose of disposal of the present petition. For
ready reference, relevant thereof, is as below:-
"8. First and foremost, for ready reference relevant extract of
Rule 12 of the Passport Rules, 1980, is as below:
"12. Duration of passports or travel documents. -
(1) An ordinary passport for persons other than
children below the age of 15 years, containing thirty-
six pages or sixty pages shall be in force for a period
of 10 years from the date of its issue...."
9. A plain reading of the aforementioned rule clearly
establishes that a citizen is entitled to be issued a passport
with a minimum validity of 10 years.
1 Rajasthan High Court - S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.5870/2024
[2024:RJ-JD:41707] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-6931/2024]
10. Trite law it is that right to travel is intrinsically contained
in the right to earn a livelihood. Courts have consistently
upheld this as a fundamental right, subject of course to
reasonable restrictions. The petitioner, who is primarily a
farmer cultivating 'Kinnu' in his orchards, exports some of his
produce to Saudi Arabia and has established business
relations there. He seeks to travel abroad to further these
business interests.
11. It is also acknowledged position that a short-term
passport validity poses practical difficulties in obtaining visas
from certain countries. Whether the passport is valid for one
year or ten years does not materially affect the allegations
against the petitioner regarding potential absconding. Thus
the renewal of his passport for the full 10-year duration
would not in any case prejudice the respondent or the
complainant.
12. Moreover, the petitioner has not been convicted of any
offense; he is merely facing charges. Under the law, he is
presumed innocent until proven guilty. The restrictions
imposed on his passport validity appear to pre-emptively
punish the petitioner, undermining the principle of
presumption of innocence enshrined in Article 21 of the
Constitution of India. Denying a 10-year passport validity
without cogent reasons amounts to an arbitrary restriction on
this right and does not align with the principles of justice,
equity, and fairness.
13. There is no substantive evidence or reasonable
apprehension expressed or presented before this Court that
the petitioner poses a flight risk or that he intends to abscond
from the legal proceedings. His established business ties in
India, particularly in agriculture, further negate the
possibility of him absconding. Not only that, it transpires that
he has his parents also residing in India with him who are his
dependents.
14. As an agriculturist involved in the export of 'Kinnu'
produce to Saudi Arabia, the petitioner's ability to travel
internationally, be it Saudi Arabia or any other country, is
directly linked to his livelihood and economic stability. There
is no gainsaying that restriction of a one-year passport
validity places an undue burden on his business operations,
affecting not only his income but also the livelihoods of those
employed under him.
15. The Passport Act, 1967, and the Rules framed thereunder
do not provide for arbitrary reduction in the validity period of
a passport for individuals not convicted of any offense. The
issuance of a one-year passport, in this case, appears to lack
any statutory backing and thus, contravenes the provisions of
the Passport Rules.
[2024:RJ-JD:41707] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-6931/2024]
16. Requiring the petitioner to frequently renew his passport
every year not only places an undue burden on him but also
on judicial and administrative resources, leading to
unnecessary litigation and wastage of public funds and time.
17. As regards the pending proceedings against the
petitioner, the issuance of a 10-year passport will not impede
the ongoing criminal proceedings in any way. The petitioner
has demonstrated his commitment to attend court hearings
and comply with all court directives. Proper conditions can be
imposed to ensure his appearance, such as requiring prior
court permission for international travel."
6. The reasoning and the circumstances enumerated in the
judgment, ibid, are clearly applicable to the facts of the present
case as well.
7. As an upshot, the petition is allowed. Order dated
03.09.2024 passed by learned Niyayadhikari, Gram Niyayalaya,
Sankda Headquarter Pokran, District jaisalmer, in Criminal Original
Case No.81/2023, is set aside. The competent authority of the
respondent state is directed to issue the pre requisite "NOC"
within a period of 30 days of the petitioner approaching it with
web-print of the instant order so as to enable him to apply for a
passport. However, it is clarified that the petitioner shall abide by
the bail conditions each time he travels abroad and he must
comply with any other conditions, if any, imposed by the learned
trial court.
8. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.
(ARUN MONGA),J
30-Sumit/-
Whether Fit for Reporting: Yes / No
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
