[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Arun Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:10718) on 26 February, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:10718]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1420/2026
Arun Kumar S/o Shri Jagdish Prasad Mali, Aged About 22 Years,
Resident Of Ward No.7, Village Bidasar, Police Station Bidasar,
District Churu (Raj).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
2. Regional Passport Officer, Jaipur, regional Passport Office,
Jaipur, J-14 Jhalana Industrial Area, jhalana Doongri,
Jaipur-302051.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tarun Dudia
Mr. Rohit Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Singh Rajpurohit, PP
Ms. Pintu Pareek
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR SHARMA
Order
26/02/2026
1. The instant criminal misc. petition is filed on behalf of the
petitioner seeking issuance/renewal of his passport.
2. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner earlier held a
passport issued to him in 2011, which he utilized frequently for
traveling abroad in order to earn his livelihood. However, in
consequence of a criminal case arising out of FIR No.38/2016,
Police Station Bidasar, District Churu registered against the
petitioner, coupled with the expiration of his earlier passport which
was valid till 28.06.2021, he has been unable to secure its re-
issuance and as a result, he has been deprived of his means of
livelihood.
(Uploaded on 27/02/2026 at 01:21:04 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:10718] (2 of 5) [CRLMP-1420/2026]
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner wishes to go abroad to earn his livelihood. Learned
counsel further submitted that the petitioner is seeking
benevolence of this Court for the issuance of direction regarding
issuance/renewal of his passport. Hence, the instant petition.
4. In an identical matter, the Coordinate Bench of this Court has
elaborately discussed the issue in the case of Abhayjeet Singh
Vs. State of Raj. (SB CRLMP No.5870/2024) decided on
02.09.2024. This Court would like to follow the same ratio so as
to maintain judicial discipline and consistency. The order above
reads 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 fora 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 10years.
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
(Uploaded on 27/02/2026 at 01:21:04 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:10718] (3 of 5) [CRLMP-1420/2026]
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 27/02/2026 at 01:21:04 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:10718] (4 of 5) [CRLMP-1420/2026]
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."
5. The petitioner obtained a passport in the year 2011 which he
used to travel abroad in order to earn his livelihood and now
(Uploaded on 27/02/2026 at 01:21:04 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:10718] (5 of 5) [CRLMP-1420/2026]
depriving him of an opportunity to earn livelihood would surely
amount to infringement of his fundamental rights which is
otherwise guaranteed by the Constitution.
6. In view of the above, the instant petition is allowed.
7. It is directed that the pendency of criminal case arising out
of FIR No.38/2016, Police Station Bidasar, District Churu shall not
be taken as an impediment in issuance/renewal of the passport in
favour of the petitioner for 10 years, in accordance with the
Passports Act, 1967.
8. The passport authority shall issue/renew the passport in
favour of the petitioner, ignoring the fact of the criminal case
mentioned above.
9. The stay petition is disposed of.
(CHANDRA SHEKHAR SHARMA),J
98-Vishal/-
(Uploaded on 27/02/2026 at 01:21:04 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
