[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Urn: Crlmp / 5473U / 2026Sunil Chandak vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:20512) on 29 April, 2026

[2026:RJ-JD:20512]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
        S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 3057/2026

Sunil Chandak S/o Jagdish Chandra Chandak, Aged About 52
Years, Resident Of Plot No.52 A, Amrit Nagar, Pal Road, Jodhpur
(Rajasthan)
                                                                    ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2.       Regional Passport Officer, Regional Passport Office, Jaipur.
                                                                 ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. Vikas Bijarnia
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. Ramesh Dewasi, PP
                                Ms. Pintu Pareek (Central Government
                                Counsel) for respondent No.2


      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU

Order

29/04/2026

The present criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed

seeking permission for renewal of the passport.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner

has applied for renewal of his passport; however, the Passport

Authority, vide order dated 24.02.2026, has directed the petitioner

to obtain permission from the Court in view of the pending

criminal case.

It is further submitted that since a criminal case is pending

against the petitioner, he approached the learned trial Court;

however, as no charge-sheet has been filed to date, his application

was not entertained. Hence, the present criminal miscellaneous

petition has been preferred before this Court seeking permission

(Uploaded on 04/05/2026 at 02:04:28 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:20512] (2 of 5) [CRLMP-3057/2026]

for renewal of the passport in connection with FIR No. 304/2022

registered against the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the FIR was

registered in the year 2022 under Section 420 IPC and the

investigation is still pending, with no final report having been filed.

It is further submitted that the petitioner is a doctor and is

required to travel abroad to attend conferences; therefore,

renewal of the passport is necessary. It is also prayed that a

specific direction be issued for renewal of the passport for a period

exceeding one year, as in the absence of such direction, the

Passport Authorities renew the passport only for one year due to

the pendency of the criminal case, which causes difficulty in

obtaining visas and undertaking international travel.

Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 submits that, in view

of the notification dated 25.08.1993, if no specific period is

mentioned by the Court, the passport is ordinarily renewed only

for one year. However, it is submitted that the Passport Authority

shall act in accordance with any specific direction issued by this

Court.

In such circumstances, the apprehension of the petitioner is

justified that in absence of a specified time frame, the renewal

authority will renew the passport only for one year, as per the

circular. The Coordinate Bench of this Court in Abhayjeet Singh

Vs. State (supra) has clearly laid down that pendency of a

criminal case cannot be an impediment in renewing the passport

for a period of ten years. In fact, renewal for one year creates

(Uploaded on 04/05/2026 at 02:04:28 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:20512] (3 of 5) [CRLMP-3057/2026]

unnecessary complications, and renewal for a longer duration does

not prejudice the case of either the State or the complainant. The

Court has observed as under:

"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.

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

(Uploaded on 04/05/2026 at 02:04:28 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:20512] (4 of 5) [CRLMP-3057/2026]

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.

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."

In the present case, the FIR registered against the petitioner

is under Section 420 IPC only and the allegations are that he

created forged bills. The FIR is of the year 2022. The investigation

in the matter is still going on and the charge-sheet has not yet

been filed before the competent Court.

In such circumstances, there is no reason to deny the

renewal of passport to the petitioner during the pendency of the

investigation in the FIR registered against the petitioner. Denial of

the same would certainly infringe his fundamental rights

guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

In such circumstances, this Court is inclined to allow the

present misc. petition with a direction that if petitioner applies