[Cites 15, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Suresh Bhansali vs Union Of India (2026:Rj-Jd:9774) on 20 February, 2026
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2026:RJ-JD:9774]
[2026:RJ-JD:9775]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 781/2026
Suresh Bhansali S/o Shri Rai Chand Bhansali, Aged About 61
Years, R/o E-58, Shastri Nagar, Ward No. 23, Jodhpur Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Union Of India, Through Ministry Of External Affair, Delhi
2. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
3. Regional Passport Officer, Jaipur, Regional Passport Office,
Jaipur.
----Respondents
Connected with
S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 782/2026
Suresh Bhansali S/o Shri Rai Chand Bhansali, Aged About 61
Years, R/o E-58, Shastri Nagar, Ward No. 23, Jodhpur
Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Union Of India, Through Ministry Of External Affair, Delhi
2. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
3. Regional Passport Officer, Jaipur, Regional Passport
Office, Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rohin Bhansali
Mr. Vipul Dharnia
For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Chandawat, AGA
Ms. Pintoo Pareek
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
20/02/2026
(Uploaded on 05/03/2026 at 12:13:31 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9774] (2 of 14) [CRLW-781/2026]
1. The present criminal writ petitions have been instituted under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528 of
the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking issuance
of appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondent-Passport
Authorities to renew/reissue the petitioner's passport for the full
statutory period of ten years instead of restricting its validity to
one year.
2. Briefly stated, the petitioner is facing trial in Criminal Case
Nos. 143/2020 (NCV No. 10691/2020) and 17/2022 (NCV No.
1741/2022), arising out of FIR No. 590/2019 registered at Police
Station Basni, Jodhpur under Section 304-A IPC. The petitioner
has remained on bail throughout the proceedings and it is not in
dispute that he has scrupulously complied with all conditions
imposed by the learned Trial Court. It is further pertinent to note
that cognizance has also been taken against the petitioner vide
order dated 21.02.2022 under Section 92 of the Factories Act,
1948, and proceedings have additionally been registered under
Sections 4 and 7-A of the said Act.
2.1 It is submitted that the criminal proceedings have been
pending for several years. The petitioner, being an established
businessman whose professional engagements require overseas
travel, asserts that the pendency of the aforesaid cases has
substantially impeded his ability to travel abroad for legitimate
business purposes and urgent family obligations. The petitioner
was originally issued Passport No. K0982763 for a period of ten
years from 12.12.2011 to 11.12.2021. Upon its expiry, he sought
(Uploaded on 05/03/2026 at 12:13:31 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9774] (3 of 14) [CRLW-781/2026]
permission from the learned Trial Court for renewal, which was
granted vide order dated 09.03.2022. However, pursuant thereto,
the Passport Authority renewed the passport only for one year,
i.e., from 27.05.2022 to 26.05.2023 (Passport No. V9701848).
2.2 After expiry of the said limited-validity passport, the
petitioner again approached the Court of Judicial Magistrate No. 4,
Jodhpur Metro, Jodhpur, seeking permission to travel abroad and
for renewal/reissuance of the passport, disclosing that his renewal
application (ARN No. 26/0049642608) was pending consideration
before the Passport Authorities. The learned Trial Court, vide order
dated 02.02.2026, permitted renewal/reissuance of the passport
and granted leave to travel abroad subject to conditions. However,
no specific direction was issued regarding the duration of validity
of the renewed passport.
2.3 According to the petitioner, in the absence of a specific
judicial direction granting full-term validity, the Passport
Authorities are likely to confine renewal to a period of one year in
view of the Office Memorandum dated 10.10.2019 issued by the
Ministry of External Affairs, thereby compelling him to seek
repeated permissions from the Court and resulting in avoidable
multiplicity of proceedings. Hence, the present writ petitions have
been preferred seeking a direction for renewal/reissuance of the
passport for the full statutory period of ten years.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the
controversy is no longer res integra. Reliance has been placed
upon the judgments of the Rajasthan High Court in Abhayjeet
(Uploaded on 05/03/2026 at 12:13:31 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9774] (4 of 14) [CRLW-781/2026]
Singh v. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Crl.M.P. No. 5870/2024) and
Mohammad Anwar v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Criminal Writ
Petition No. 863/2026), wherein it has been held that mere
pendency of an FIR or criminal trial cannot, in the absence of
compelling reasons, justify curtailment of passport validity to less
than the statutory period, particularly when the accused is on bail
and his presence can be secured by appropriate safeguards. It is
further submitted that the petitioner has never misused the liberty
granted to him and that denial of full-term renewal would be
arbitrary and disproportionate.
4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-
State and Passport Authorities submit that the petitioner is
admittedly facing trial in criminal cases arising out of a cognizable
offence, and the matter is still sub judice. It is contended that in
terms of the Office Memorandum dated 10.10.2019 issued by the
Ministry of External Affairs, where criminal proceedings are
pending and permission is granted by the Court without specifying
the period of validity, the Passport Authority is justified in issuing
or renewing the passport for a limited period, ordinarily one year,
so as to ensure periodic judicial oversight. It is further submitted
that such restriction does not amount to denial of the right to
travel, but is a regulatory measure intended to balance individual
liberty with the interest of administration of justice and to secure
the presence of the accused during trial. Counsel for the
respondents, therefore, pray for dismissal of the writ petitions,
submitting that no case for interference under Article 226 of the
Constitution is made out.
(Uploaded on 05/03/2026 at 12:13:31 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9774] (5 of 14) [CRLW-781/2026]
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone
through the material as made available to the Court.
6. 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
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.
(Uploaded on 05/03/2026 at 12:13:31 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9774] (6 of 14) [CRLW-781/2026]
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
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
(Uploaded on 05/03/2026 at 12:13:31 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9774] (7 of 14) [CRLW-781/2026]
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)
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
(Uploaded on 05/03/2026 at 12:13:31 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9774] (8 of 14) [CRLW-781/2026]
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
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
(Uploaded on 05/03/2026 at 12:13:31 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9774] (9 of 14) [CRLW-781/2026]
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
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
(Uploaded on 05/03/2026 at 12:13:31 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9774] (10 of 14) [CRLW-781/2026]
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.
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
(Uploaded on 05/03/2026 at 12:13:31 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9774] (11 of 14) [CRLW-781/2026]
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.
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.
(Uploaded on 05/03/2026 at 12:13:31 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9774] (12 of 14) [CRLW-781/2026]
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.
In light of the authoritative pronouncement rendered by this
Court in Pradeep Kumar Sarwogi v. Union of India & Ors.
(supra), which has meticulously construed the ambit of Section
6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967 read with Notification No.
G.S.R. 570(E) dated 25.08.1993, this Court is of the considered
view that the present writ petitions deserve to be allowed.
7. It is hereby declared that the pendency of Criminal Case
Nos. 143/2020 (NCV No. 10691/2020) and 17/2022 (NCV No.
1741/2022), arising out of FIR No. 590/2019 registered at
Police Station Basni, Jodhpur under Section 304-A IPC, nor the
taking of cognizance against the petitioner vide order dated
21.02.2022 under Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948 and the
registration of proceedings under Sections 4 and 7-A thereof,
shall be construed as a legal embargo or disqualification so as
to impede the renewal or reissuance of the petitioner's passport
for the full statutory period of validity.
8. Consequently, and in furtherance of the declaration
aforesaid, the respondent-Passport Authority is hereby
commanded to forthwith process the petitioner's pending
application and to renew/reissue his passport for the full
standard statutory validity period of ten years, strictly in
accordance with law. The authority shall not curtail, truncate, or
(Uploaded on 05/03/2026 at 12:13:31 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9774] (13 of 14) [CRLW-781/2026]
condition the tenure of the passport merely on account of the
pendency of the aforementioned criminal proceedings or the
taking of cognizance thereunder, as such considerations, in the
facts of the present case, do not constitute a lawful ground for
restricting the duration of validity.
(a) The exercise shall be completed with due expedition,
subject only to the petitioner's fulfillment of all other statutory
requirements, procedural formalities, and compliance
obligations as contemplated under the Passports Act, 1967 and
the rules framed thereunder. It is made explicit that any
administrative decision resulting in a short-term or conditional
renewal, founded solely upon the pendency of the criminal
cases referred to hereinabove, shall be impermissible and
contrary to the settled legal position.
(b) At the same time, by way of abundant clarification, renewal
or reissuance of the passport shall not ipso facto entitle the
petitioner to travel beyond the territorial limits of India. The
petitioner shall remain scrupulously bound by all subsisting
conditions imposed by the competent criminal court. In
consonance with the liberty already granted by the learned Trial
Court, the petitioner shall be entitled to travel abroad for a
period not exceeding four months in a calendar year, upon
furnishing surety of a blood relative to the satisfaction of the
Trial Court and upon obtaining prior permission, as and when so
required. Such safeguard shall sufficiently secure the presence
of the petitioner and preserve the majesty of the judicial
(Uploaded on 05/03/2026 at 12:13:31 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9774] (14 of 14) [CRLW-781/2026]
process.
9. The writ petitions are accordingly allowed in the aforesaid
terms. All pending applications, if any, including stay
applications, stand disposed of. No order as to costs.
(FARJAND ALI),J
31-Mamta/-
(Uploaded on 05/03/2026 at 12:13:31 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
