[Cites 12, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Mohammed Yasir vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:9001) on 18 February, 2026

Author: Farjand Ali

Bench: Farjand Ali

[2026:RJ-JD:9001]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
               S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 661/2026

Mohammed Yasir S/o Mohammad Shakir, Aged About 40 Years,
Resident Of 187/a, Hinglaz Nagar, 6Th Puliya, Chopasani Road,
Jodhpur, Pin-342004 (Rajasthan)
                                                                    ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through The Public Prosecutor
2.       Union Of India, Through The Regional Passport Officer,
         Jaipur, Regional Passport Office, Jaipur.
                                                                 ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. Rajak Khan Haidar
                                Mr. Mohd. Asif Khan
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. Sri Ram Choudhary, AGA



                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

18/02/2026

1. The present criminal writ petition, preferred under Article

226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528 of the

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been filed by the

petitioner against the impugned order dated 03.02.2026 passed

by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (PCPNDT

Cases), Jodhpur Metro, District Jodhpur, in Criminal Regular Case

No.118/2023 arising out of FIR No.0101/2022 registered at Police

Station Mahila Thana, Jodhpur City (East), for the offences

punishable under Sections 498-A & 406 of the Indian Penal Code

whereby the learned Magistrate has rejected the application filed

by the petitioner for permission to renewal/reissuance of the

passport and to visit abroad.

(Uploaded on 20/02/2026 at 05:14:14 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:9001] (2 of 10) [CRLW-661/2026]

2. The succinct factual matrix giving rise to the present petition

is that the The Petitioner is facing trial in Criminal Regular Case

No. 118/2023 arising out of FIR No. 0101 dated 10.05.2022

registered at Police Station-Mahila Thana, Jodhpur City (East), for

offences under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC. The prosecution

emanates from a matrimonial dispute, and the Petitioner asserts

false implication. He is presently on bail and has complied with all

conditions.

2.1. Owing to the pendency of the case, the Petitioner has been

effectively restrained from renewing/reissuing his passport and

travelling abroad, which is essential for his livelihood and forms

part of his personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The Petitioner moved two applications before the learned trial

Court seeking permission for passport renewal and foreign travel.

The same were rejected vide order dated 03.02.2026 without

assigning cogent reasons or duly considering the constitutional

dimensions of the relief sought.

2.2. The impugned order, being non-speaking and mechanical,

has resulted in unwarranted curtailment of the Petitioner's

fundamental rights, compelling him to invoke the writ jurisdiction

of this Court. Hence the instant writ petition.

3. I have heard the counsel for the parties and gone through

the material as made available to this Court.

4. In an identical matter, this Court has elaborately discussed

the issue in the case of Pradeep Kumar Sarwogi Vs. Union of

India & Ors. (SB CRLWP No.2358/2025) decided on

29.01.2026. This Court would like to follow the same ratio so as

(Uploaded on 20/02/2026 at 05:14:14 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:9001] (3 of 10) [CRLW-661/2026]

to maintain judicial discipline and consistency. The order above

reads as under:-

9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the rival submissions and the limited controversy which arises for consideration in the present writ petition concerns the scope and application of Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967 read with Notification No. G.S.R. 570(E) dated 25.08.1993, in the factual context of the petitioner's case. The Court is called upon to examine whether renewal of a passport can be declined or deferred solely on account of pendency of criminal proceedings, particularly where the proceedings stand stayed qua the petitioner, no restraint has been imposed by the criminal court on possession of passport, and the petitioner is not seeking permission to travel abroad.

The ancillary question as to the extent of writ jurisdiction in scrutinising administrative action of the Passport Authority, in the light of the statutory scheme and the law declared by the Supreme Court, also falls for consideration.

10. At the threshold, it is necessary to note that the controversy in the present writ petition does not arise from any express direction issued by the Passport Authority requiring the petitioner to obtain prior permission or a 'no objection' from the criminal court. The communication issued to the petitioner merely sought clarification as to whether the criminal proceedings stood disposed of. The resistance to renewal, as projected before this Court, is founded on the broader submission that pendency of criminal proceedings obliges the petitioner to first approach the criminal court before seeking renewal of passport. It is this submission, advanced on behalf of the

(Uploaded on 20/02/2026 at 05:14:14 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:9001] (4 of 10) [CRLW-661/2026]

respondents, which falls for examination in the context of the statutory scheme and the law declared by the Supreme Court.

11. Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967 empowers the Passport Authority to refuse issuance of a passport where proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant are pending before a criminal court in India. The provision, however, does not operate in isolation. It is expressly subject to the other provisions of the Act, including the power of exemption conferred upon the Central Government under Section 22. In exercise of the said power, Notification No. G.S.R. 570(E) dated 25.08.1993 has been issued, which relaxes the rigour of Section 6(2)(f) in specified situations.

1. 12. The scope and interplay of Section 6(2)(f) and Notification No. G.S.R. 570(E) has been examined authoritatively by the Supreme Court in Mahesh Kumar Agarwal v. Union of India & Anr. (2025 INSC 1476). The Supreme Court has clarified that Section 6(2)(f) does not operate as an absolute or inflexible bar to issuance or renewal of a passport merely on account of pendency of criminal proceedings. While construing the notification, the Supreme Court has observed:

"What the notification does not do is to create a new substantive bar beyond Section 6(2)(f), or to insist that the criminal court must, in every case, grant a prior blanket permission to 'depart from India' for specified dates as a jurisdictional precondition to the very issue or re-issue of a passport." (para 10)

(Uploaded on 20/02/2026 at 05:14:14 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:9001] (5 of 10) [CRLW-661/2026]

13. The Supreme Court has further explained the limited statutory purpose underlying the restriction contained in Section 6(2)(f), holding:

"The legitimate purpose behind Section 6(2)

(f) and Section 10(3)(e) is to ensure that a person facing criminal proceedings remains amenable to the jurisdiction of the criminal court." (para 21)

14. The restriction is thus regulatory and purpose-

oriented, and cannot be permitted to assume the character of a punitive or indefinite civil disability. The provision is intended to secure the presence of the accused before the criminal court and not to impose collateral consequences unrelated to that object.

15. A significant facet of the Supreme Court's reasoning lies in the clear distinction drawn between possession of a passport and permission to travel abroad. In this regard, it has been observed:

"It is important to keep distinct the possession of a valid passport and the act of travelling abroad. A passport is a civil document that enables its holder to seek a visa and, subject to other laws and orders, to cross international borders. Whether a person who is on bail or facing trial may actually leave the country is a matter for the criminal court, which can grant or withhold permission, impose conditions, insist on undertakings, or refuse leave altogether." (para 22)

16. The above distinction assumes particular significance in the present case. The petitioner has not sought permission to travel abroad. The prayer is confined to renewal of the passport as a civil document

(Uploaded on 20/02/2026 at 05:14:14 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:9001] (6 of 10) [CRLW-661/2026]

of identity. The condition imposed while granting anticipatory bail restrains the petitioner from leaving India without prior permission of the Court. That condition continues to bind the petitioner and adequately preserves the jurisdiction of the criminal court. Renewal of a passport, by itself, does not dilute or override such judicial control.

17. The Supreme Court has also cautioned against administrative insistence on speculative or future travel permissions at the stage of passport renewal, holding:

"The passport authority is not required, at the renewal stage, to demand a schedule of future journeys or visas which may not yet exist." (para 16)

18. Viewed in this backdrop, the contention that the petitioner was required to approach the criminal court for permission or a 'no objection' even at the stage of renewal, in the absence of any restraint order, cannot be accepted. Such insistence would amount to importing a requirement not contemplated either by the statute or by the exemption notification.

19. The Supreme Court has further clarified the role of the writ court in such matters, rejecting the submission that entertaining a writ petition amounts to execution of criminal court orders. It has been observed:

"The writ petition did not seek execution of those orders as such. It sought enforcement of a statutory obligation cast on the passport authority, read with the exemption notification that forms part of the legal regime under the Passports Act." (para 17)

20. An additional and material circumstance in the present case is that further proceedings in the criminal

(Uploaded on 20/02/2026 at 05:14:14 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:9001] (7 of 10) [CRLW-661/2026]

case stand stayed qua the petitioner by an order passed by this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. During the subsistence of such stay, no adjudicatory or coercive proceedings can be undertaken against the petitioner. The immediate statutory concern underlying Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, namely ensuring that an accused remains amenable to the jurisdiction of the criminal court, therefore stands substantially diluted for the duration of the stay.

21. In this backdrop, withholding renewal of the petitioner's passport merely on the ground that the criminal proceedings have not been disposed of would neither advance the object of the statute nor satisfy the requirement of proportionality. The petitioner is not a convicted person, continues to be bound by judicial conditions regulating foreign travel, and there is nothing on record to suggest that renewal of the passport would prejudice the prosecution or impede the administration of justice.

22. Before issuing final directions, this Court deems it appropriate to crystallise the legal position emerging from the discussion. Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967 does not contemplate an absolute or automatic embargo on issuance or renewal of a passport solely on account of pendency of criminal proceedings. The restriction is qualified, purpose- oriented, and intended only to secure the amenability of an accused to criminal jurisdiction. Where no restraint has been imposed by the criminal court on possession of a passport, no permission to travel abroad is sought, and judicial control over foreign travel continues to subsist, denial or deferment of renewal ceases to bear a rational nexus with the statutory object.

(Uploaded on 20/02/2026 at 05:14:14 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:9001] (8 of 10) [CRLW-661/2026]

23. The exemption notification issued under Section 22 of the Act, namely Notification No. G.S.R. 570(E) dated 25.08.1993, reinforces this interpretation by recognising that persons facing criminal proceedings are not to be treated as wholly disentitled to a passport. The notification regulates the manner of issuance in appropriate cases, but does not convert renewal of a passport into an indirect or anticipatory mechanism of travel control.

24. The distinction between renewal of a passport and permission to leave the country remains fundamental. Renewal merely enables possession of a valid civil document of identity and does not, by itself, confer any right to travel abroad or dilute the authority of the criminal court. Where a subsisting judicial order already restrains an accused from leaving India without prior permission, the concern underlying Section 6(2)

(f) stands adequately addressed. Insistence on a further "no objection" at the stage of renewal, in such circumstances, would amount to procedural formalism unsupported by the statutory scheme.

25. The present case also stands on a materially stronger footing than the case considered by the Supreme Court in Mahesh Kumar Agarwal v. Union of India & Anr. In that case, the appellant was not only facing criminal proceedings but had also suffered a conviction in a separate matter, albeit with the sentence suspended. Even in such circumstances, the Supreme Court declined to uphold a rigid or mechanical application of Section 6(2)(f). In the present case, the petitioner is not a convicted person and further proceedings in the criminal case stand stayed qua him. The justification for withholding or truncating renewal of the passport is, therefore, even weaker.

(Uploaded on 20/02/2026 at 05:14:14 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:9001] (9 of 10) [CRLW-661/2026]

26. As regards the period of validity, this Court finds no legal or rational basis to direct a truncated or short- term renewal. The criminal case arises from an FIR of the year 2015 and the trial has remained in abeyance for a considerable length of time, with no certainty as to when the proceedings may recommence or reach finality. To compel the petitioner, a senior citizen, to repeatedly approach the Passport Authority or the Court for renewal at short intervals, despite not seeking permission to travel abroad, would impose an unreasonable and disproportionate burden unconnected with the object of the statute. Once the concern underlying Section 6(2)(f) stands sufficiently addressed through subsisting judicial control over foreign travel, there is no justification to deny renewal for the full standard validity period prescribed under law.

27. For the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed.

28. The petitioner shall place a copy of this order before the concerned Regional Passport Officer, who shall process and renew the petitioner's passport for the full standard validity period of ten years, subject to fulfillment of statutory requirements and in accordance with law.

29. Renewal of the passport shall not, by itself, entitle the petitioner to travel abroad. Prior permission of the competent criminal court shall be obtained before any such travel.

30. This order is confined to the facts of the present case and shall not be construed as limiting the jurisdiction of the criminal court to impose appropriate conditions in accordance with law.

31. No order as to costs.

(Uploaded on 20/02/2026 at 05:14:14 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:9001] (10 of 10) [CRLW-661/2026]

In view of the dicta followed in Pradeep Kumar Swarogi

(Supra), the denial of permission to pursue his vocation abroad

operates as a direct encroachment upon the Petitioner's

constitutionally enshrined right to livelihood, an inextricable

facet of personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the

Constitution of India. Such deprivation, absent compelling

justification, amounts to an unwarranted infringement of his

fundamental rights.

5. In light of the foregoing considerations, the present petition