Jharkhand High Court
Md. Iqbal Alam @ Sonu vs State Of Jharkhand & Anr on 20 July, 2026
Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 167 of 2021
Md. Iqbal Alam @ Sonu --- --- Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand & Anr.
--- --- Respondents
---
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
—-
For the Appellant : Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, Sr. Adv.
For the State : A.P.P.
For the UOI : Mr. Prashant Pallav, ASGI
For the Informant : Mr. K.S. Nanda, Adv.
---
I.A. No. 6219 of 2026.
08/20.07.2026 Heard Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, learned senior counsel
for the appellant and Mr. Prashant Pallav, learned ASGI.
2. This interlocutory application has been preferred by
the petitioner for grant of permission/no objection for the
renewal of passport of the appellant bearing no. P4823951
which is to expire on 10.11.2026.
3. The appellant was convicted under Section 376(1)
and 313 IPC and had been sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for 10 years and 7 years respectively along with
a fine of Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 30,000/-. The appellant was
granted bail during the pendency of the appeal in I.A.
No. 116/2022 vide order dated 09.06.2023. Thereafter, this
interlocutory application has been preferred by the appellant
for renewal of the passport of the appellant for a period of
10 years.
4. Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, learned senior counsel for the
appellant has submitted that the appellant is working in Saif
Bin Darwish Company LLC, UAE as a Mechanic Assistant and
after being released on bail, the appellant has joined the said
company. The appellant is a holder of passport bearing
no. P4823951 having a standard validity period of 10 years
from 11.11.2016 to 10.11.2026. Mr. Mazumdar, learned senior
Page 1 of 6
counsel has referred to the Office Memorandum dated
10.10.2019 issued by the Ministry of External Affairs,
Government of India which provides in the case of a person
against whom a criminal proceeding is pending to take no
objection/permission from the Court concerned for renewal /
issuance of passport.
5. We have also heard Mr. Prashant Pallav, learned
ASGI appearing for the Union of India.
6. In order to appreciate the rival contentions, we may
refer to the Office Memorandum dated 10.10.2019 wherein,
reference has been made to Notification No. GSR 570(E) dated
25.08.1993 regarding issuance of passport to applicants who
have criminal proceedings pending against them and the same
reads as under:
“(i) for the period specified in order of the court
referred to above, if the court specifies a period
for which the passport has to be issued; or
(ii) if no period either for the issue of the passport
or for the travel abroad is specified in such
order, the passport shall be issued for a period
of one year;
(iii) if such order gives permission to travel abroad
for a period less than one year, but does not
specify the period validity of the passport, the
passport shall be issued for one year;
(iv) if such order gives permission to travel abroad
for a period exceeding one year, and does not
specify the validity of the passport, then the
passport shall be issued for the period of travel
abroad specified in the order.
7. The Notification GSR 570(E) has been reiterated in
the Office Memorandum dated 10.10.2019 with additional
features for processing the passport application in respect to
Page 2 of 6
those applicants who may have criminal proceedings pending
before a criminal court in India.
8. The exemption clause as mentioned in the said
notification governs Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967
and Section 6 in its entirety reads as follows:
“6. Refusal of passports, travel documents, etc.-
(1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the
passport authority shall refuse to make an
endorsement for visiting any foreign country under
clause (b) or clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 5
on any one or more of the following grounds, and on
no other ground, namely:-
(a) that the applicant may, or is likely to, engage in
such country in activities prejudicial to the
sovereignty and integrity of India;
(b) that the presence of the applicant in such country
may, or is likely to, be detrimental to the security of
India;
(c) that the presence of the applicant in such country
may, or is likely to, prejudice the friendly relations of
India with that or any other country;
(d) that in the opinion of the Central Government the
presence of the applicant in such country is not in the
public interest.
(2) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the
passport authority shall refuse to issue a passport or
travel document for visiting any foreign country under
clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 5 on any one or
more of the following grounds, and on no other
ground, namely:-
(a) that the applicant is not a citizen of India;
Page 3 of 6
(b) that the applicant may, or is likely to, engage
outside India in activities prejudicial to the
sovereignty and integrity of India;
(c) that the departure of the applicant from India may,
or is likely to, be detrimental to the security of India;
(d) that the presence of the applicant outside India
may, or is likely to, prejudice the friendly relations of
India with any foreign country;
(e) that the applicant has, at any time during the
period of five years immediately preceding the date of
his application, been convicted by a court in India for
any offence involving moral turpitude thereof and
sentenced in respect imprisonment for not less than
two years;
(f) that proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to
have been committed by the applicant are pending
before a criminal court in India;
(g) that a warrant or summons for the appearance, or
a warrant for the arrest, of the applicant has been
issued by a court under any law for the time being in
force or that an order prohibiting the departure from
India of the applicant has been made by any such
court;
(h) that the applicant has been repatriated and has
not reimbursed the expenditure incurred in
connection with such repatriation;
(i) that in the opinion of the Central Government the
issue of a passport or travel document to the
applicant will not be in the public interest.”
9. The case of the appellant, according to Mr.
Mazumdar, learned senior counsel is concentrated on Clause
2(a)(1) of GSR 570(E) dated 25.081993 which, according to
him, governs his case.
Page 4 of 6
10. In Mahesh Kumar Agarwal v. Union of India &
Anr. reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2887, it has been
observed as follows:
“10. On a plain reading, GSR 570(E) does two things.
First, it recognises that persons facing criminal
proceedings are not to be treated as absolutely
disentitled to a passport. Instead, it permits such
persons to obtain a passport, notwithstanding
Section 6(2) (f), where the concerned criminal court
has applied its mind and passed an order in relation
to issuance or use of the passport and where. the
applicant furnishes an undertaking to appear before
the court as and when required. Secondly, it
structures the exercise of that exemption by tying the
validity and use of the passport to the terms of the
court’s order. Thus, where the court specifies a period
for which the passport is to be issued, the passport
authority must honour that period. Where the court
does not stipulate any period, the notification
provides default rules, including issuance for a
shorter period, ordinarily one year, in appropriate
cases. 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.
11. The OM dated 10.10.2019 does not create a new
regime. It reiterates that GSR 570(E) must be “strictly
applied”, explains the procedure where criminal
cases are pending and makes it clear that a “no
objection certificate” or permission from the criminalPage 5 of 6
court, read with the applicant’s undertaking, may
override an adverse police report with reasons
recorded by the Passport Officer. It also contemplates
situations where more than one court is dealing with
the matter and indicates that the orders of all such
courts are to be read together. The OM is thus an
administrative restatement of the position under
Section 6(2)(f), Section 22 and GSR 570(E), and
cannot add to or cut down the exemption which the
notification itself grants.”
11. So far as the present case is concerned, the
appellant was issued a passport for a period of 10 years and
its validity is to expire on 10.11.2026. No adverse submission
has been articulated before us by the learned ASGI which may
cause an impediment to grant permission for renewal of the
passport for a period of 10 years.
12. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of
the case and the law laid down, we hereby grant no
objection/permission for renewal of the passport of the
appellant for a period of 10 years subject to compliance of
other procedural requirements.
13. This interlocutory application stands disposed of.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Dated- 20th July, 2026.
Preet/-
Uploaded on: 23 /07/2026.
Page 6 of 6
