[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Kafiya Bano vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:6488) on 4 February, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:6488]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 8511/2025
Kafiya Bano W/o Yusuf Ali Khan, Aged About 55 Years, Resident
Of Ward No. 27 (Old Ward No. 22), Near Kalu Khan Well, Police
Station-Sardarsahar, District-Churu, Pin 331001 (Rajasthan)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Public Prosecutor
2. Regional Passport Officer, Jaipur, Regional Passport Office,
Jaipur
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajak Khan Haidar &
Mr. Pankaj Sain
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Singh Rajpurohit, PP
Mr. Rajendra Choudhary, for
Passport Authority, UOI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU
Order
04/02/2026
The petitioner has challenged order dated 22.08.2025
passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Sardarsahar, District Churu in Criminal Misc. Criminal Case
No.306/2025 titled as "State Vs. Kafiya Bano", whereby the
application filed by the petitioner seeking renewal of passport for
a regular period of ten years as well as permission to go abroad
has been rejected.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitoner's son and his family is residing at Dubai and the
petitioner needs to travel abroad to meet them, so also, to
perform Hajj Yatra at Saudi Arabia, thus, the Passport Authorities
(Uploaded on 07/02/2026 at 02:21:43 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:6488] (2 of 6) [CRLMP-8511/2025]
be directed to renew her passport (which has expired on
04.02.2025) and the petitioner may be permitted to go abroad.
Counsel further submitted that the learned trial court only
due to pendency of investigation in the FIR, wherein the petitioner
is named accused, has rejected her application. Counsel for the
petitioner submits that mere pendency of criminal case cannot be
a ground to deny permission to go abroad either for his/her family
purpose or to earn livelihood, as it clearly amount to breach of
fundamental right of an individual. Counsel also argued that mere
pendency of criminal case should not be an impediment for
renewing passport for a regular period of ten years instead of
renewal for one year.
Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon order passed by
Coordinate Bench of this Court in Abhayjeet Singh Vs. State
(S.B. CrLMP No. 5870/2024), decided on 02.09.2024.
The Co-ordinate 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 passport for a
period of ten years. In fact, renewal for passport for one year
creates unnecessary complication, and renewal for a longer
duration does not prejudice 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...."
(Uploaded on 07/02/2026 at 02:21:43 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:6488] (3 of 6) [CRLMP-8511/2025]
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.
(Uploaded on 07/02/2026 at 02:21:43 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:6488] (4 of 6) [CRLMP-8511/2025]
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.
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."
Learned counsel for the Passport Authority submits that they
shall abide by the directions issued by this Court. However,
learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Upon perusal of order dated 22.08.2025, this Court finds
that the application of petitioner has been rejected only on the
ground of pending investigation in criminal case.
(Uploaded on 07/02/2026 at 02:21:43 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:6488] (5 of 6) [CRLMP-8511/2025]
In view of the same, this Court is inclined to allow the
present misc. petition with a direction that if the petitioner applies
before the competent authority for renewal of her passport, the
pendency of proceedings (arising out of FIR No.21/2025 registered
at Police Station Sardarsahar, District Churu for the offence under
Sections 420, 465, 466, 467, 468, 166, 167, 120-B IPC) shall not
be an impediment for renewal of her passport for a regular period
under the Passport Act, 1967, if she is otherwise eligible.
So far as the permission to travel abroad is concerned, the
petitioner shall be permitted to go abroad for a limited period of
four months, provided she furnishes a personal bond of a sum of
Rs.5 Lakhs as well a surety bonds of the like amount of her two
near relatives, before the jurisdictional Magistrate. Further
alongwith the same, she would be required to submit her travel
schedule.
She shall also furnish an undertaking to the effect that if any
of the conditions is contravened, her personal bond and surety
bonds so furnished shall be forfeited and amenable to recovery.
Further, the permission to travel abroad granted to the
petitioner is only one time. The petitioner would be required to
seek permission from the competent court whenever she plans to
visit abroad in future.
With these observations, the present misc. petition stands
allowed.
(Uploaded on 07/02/2026 at 02:21:43 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:6488] (6 of 6) [CRLMP-8511/2025]
Stay application and all pending applications, if any, stands
disposed of accordingly.
(BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU),J
214-Sanjay/-
(Uploaded on 07/02/2026 at 02:21:43 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
