Orissa High Court
Biswa Mohan Mohanty vs State Of Odisha on 14 July, 2026
Author: Sanjeebk Panigrahi
Bench: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 15-Jul-2026 19:52:23
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.1366 of 2026
(In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure corresponding to Section 528 of the
BharatiyaNagarik Surakshya Sanhita (BNSS), 2023)
Biswa Mohan Mohanty .... Petitioner(s)
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Opposite Party (s)
Advocates appeared in the case throughHybrid Mode:
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gopal Kumar Agarwal, Senior Adv
Along with
M/s. Suryanshi Srivastava, Adv.
P. Tejasman, Adv. N. Agarwal, Adv.
For Opposite Party(s) : Ms. Gayatri Patra, ASC
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
DATE OF HEARING:-04.05.2026
DATE OF JUDGMENT:-14.07.2026
Dr. SanjeebK Panigrahi, J.
1. The present CRLMC has been filed by the Petitioner, against whom
allegations of cheating have been levelled, assailing the order dated
02.09.2025 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Malkangiri in G.R. Case
No.336 of 2017 arising out of Malkangiri P.S. Case No.110 of 2017
(Annexure-3). By the said order, the learned S.D.J.M. rejected the
Petitioner’s application seeking issuance of a No Objection Certificate
(NOC) to enable him to renew his passport.
Page 1
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 15-Jul-2026 19:52:23
I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:
2. The brief fact of the case, in nutshell, is that originally the case arises
out of the complaint petition filed by the complainant named Bhanu
Dora, W/o.-Late Chamara Dora of Village Korukonda, P.S/ District-
Malkangiri against 12 numbers of accused persons including the
present Petitioner for the commission of offence punishable under
Sections 209/210/420/468/471/34 of I.P.C.The allegation made in the
said complaint is thatthe accused persons so also the present Petitioner
giving false document and adducing false evidence before the Court of
learned Civil Court (Sr.Divn.),Malkangiri, obtained a decree.
Thereafter, they also executed that decree in their favour which is not
only due to them but is also punishable under Section 209 of the IPC.
The accused persons with an intention to dispossessthe complainant
from her propertydid the sameclandestinely.
3. Soon after knowing the said fact the complainant filed an objection
petition along with a petition for stay of execution of the decree before
the Court of learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Malkangiri.Thereafter, on
hearing the said interim application at the instance of the complainant
the learned Court below passed an interim order thereby staying the
decree. The learned Court below had also given a direction to the
Tahasildar, Malkangiri for its non-execution.
4. Later on,a criminal case was also filed by the complainant. In the said
criminal case, it was also alleged therein thatthe accused persons by
givingfalse statement haveobtaineda decree pertaining to the disputed
property in question, which originally belongs to the husband of the
Page 2
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 15-Jul-2026 19:52:23
complainant and her other coparceners and the said accused persons
deceitfully partitioned that landed property in their favour. Based on
the said com plaint petition the learned Court in seisin over the matter
sent the said complaint petition to the Police as per provision
contained under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C for conducting
investigation.
5. Upon investigation the I.O. submitted charge sheet. Accordingly,
cognizance was taken and later on,in the year 2022,the present
Petitioner had challenged the said order of cognizance before the
Court of learned District and Sessions Judge, Malkangiri. In the year
2025, the said petition was dismissed and the order of cognizance is
still in force. On receiving the said case record,the learned Court in
seisin over the matter issued notice to all the accused persons
including the present Petitioner. Accordingly, on 17.06.2024, the
present Petitioner/ Biswa Mohan Mohanty appeared before the
learned Court in seisin over the matterand was released on bail. As
this case is in nascent stage, noneof the witnesses from the prosecution
sidehas been examined till today and the allegations averred in the
complaint petition by the complainant is still in force. So, the
provision under Section 6(2)(f) of the Passport Act, 1967 which in
categorically terms, mandated the Passport Authority to refuse the
issuance of a passport or travel document for visiting any foreign
court under clause (C)(2) of Section 5 on the ground that the
proceeding in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by
the applicant were pending before a criminal Court in India.
Page 3
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 15-Jul-2026 19:52:23
6. The Court has interpreted the word “Shall” used in Section 6(2) of the
Passport Act, 1967 indicated the mandatory or binding nature of the
provision leaving no room for discretion. Section 6(2)(f) is seen as a
reasonable restriction imposed by law within the framework of Article
19(f) of the Constitution of India which debars issuance of passport
where proceeding in respect of offence alleged to have been
committed by the applicant pending before a criminal Court in India.
7. Based on the above noted provisions and allegations levelled against
the present petitioner, the learned Court in seisin over the matter
declined to allow the petition for renewal / re-issuance of the passport
in favour of the present Petitioner. Accordingly, the learned Court in
seisin over the matter vide impugned order dated 02.09.2025 rejected
the said petition at the instance of the present Petitioner.Hence, the
present CRLMC.
II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
8. Learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following
submissions in support of his contentions, as borne out from the
Written Note of Submissions:
i) Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner
had filed a Writ Petition vide W.P.(C) No.37698 of 2023 with a
prayer todirect the Regional Passport Officer, Bhubaneswar,
Odisha for processing his application and issuance of passport
in his favour. On hearing both the sides, this Court vide order
dated 30.07.2024 disposed of the said Writ Petition with a
Page 4
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 15-Jul-2026 19:52:23direction that if the Petitioner makes an application before the
Court of learned S.D.J.M, Malkangiri for getting NOC for
issuance of passport in his favour, the same shall be considered
and disposed of in accordance with law.
ii) Pursuant to thesaid order dated 30.07.2024 the Petitioner moved
an application before the learned Court in seisin over the
matterfor granting necessary NOC as per the notification vide
GSR 570(E) of the Government. As per the said notification, in
case of pendency of a criminal casethe Petitioner has to obtain
NOC from the concerned Court for issuance of passport or
renewal.
iii) Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the learned
court in seisin of the matter, without due consideration of the
grounds submitted by the Petitioner, rejected his application
seeking issuance of a No Objection Certificate (NOC) for
renewal of his passport by the impugned order dated 02.09.2025.
It was further submitted that the learned court below failed to
appreciate that the mere pendency of a criminal case is not, by
itself, a bar to the issuance or renewal of a passport. He further
submitted that, while granting bail to the Petitioner vide order
dated 17.06.2025, the learned court below neither directed
surrender of the Petitioner’s passport nor imposed any condition
requiring prior permission of the court for travelling abroad. It
was, therefore, contended that the impugned order is
Page 5
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 15-Jul-2026 19:52:23
unsustainable in law, and accordingly, prayer was made for
allowing the present CRLMC.
III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY:
9. On the contrary, the Learned Counsel for the Opposite Partymade the
following submissions:
i) In opposition, learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Party
submitted that several criminal cases are pending against the
Petitioner, Biswa Mohan Mohanty, before different courts and are
yet to be adjudicated. It was contended that no final verdict has
been rendered in any of those cases, including the present one.
ii) Learned counsel further submitted that, in the instant case, out of
the eleven accused persons, only the Petitioner has appeared before
the learned court below and has been enlarged on bail. The case is
presently awaiting the appearance of the remaining accused
persons and is pending for further orders. In such circumstances, it
was submitted that the proceedings are still at a preliminary stage
and that the relief sought by the Petitioner ought not to be granted.
iii) Learned counsel further submitted that the case is presently at a
nascent stage, with the investigation still in progress. It was argued
that renewal or re-issuance of the Petitioner’s passport at this
juncture may impede the effective conduct of the investigation and
may also diminish the Petitioner’s availability for investigative and
legal processes. He, therefore, urged that the prayer for renewal or
re-issuance of the passport be declined.
Page 6
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 15-Jul-2026 19:52:23
IV. THIS COURT’S REASONING AND ANALYSIS:
10. This Court has heard the rival contentions advanced by the learned
counsel for the parties at length and has considered on the materials
placed on record, including the impugned order dated 02.09.2025
passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Malkangiri vide Annexure-3, the order
of this Court dated 30.07.2024 passed in W.P.(C) No.37698 of 2023, and
the case diary pertaining to G.R. Case No.336/2017.
11. The moot question that falls for determination before this Court is a
narrow but significant one that is whether the mere pendency of a
criminal case, without anything further, ipso facto disentitles an
accused from being granted permission/No Objection Certificate for
renewal of his passport under Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967
read with Notification No. GSR 570(E) dated 25.08.1993 and,
correspondingly, whether the impugned order, which proceeds solely
on the ground of such pendency can be said to reflect a considered
and judicious exercise of discretion by the Court below or whether it
amounts to a mechanical and non-speaking refusal that cannot be
sustained in the eye of law.
12. Before adverting to the rival submissions, it would be apposite to
notice the statutory architecture within which the present controversy
is situated. Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967 casts an obligation
on 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. This
Page 7
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 15-Jul-2026 19:52:23
provision, however, does not operate in a vacuum. The Central
Government, being conscious of the fact that an unqualified embargo
of this nature would work undue hardship upon persons merely
facing trial, and would be difficult to reconcile with the guarantee of
personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution, issued
Notification No. GSR 570(E) carving out a mechanism whereby the
Passport Authority may issue a passport, notwithstanding pendency
of a criminal case, if the Court concerned having jurisdiction over the
case grants permission to the applicant to depart from India. The
object underlying Section 6(2)(f), therefore, is not punitive but
custodial in nature and it is intended to ensure that the accused
remains amenable to the jurisdiction of the criminal Court and does
not use the passport as a device to evade trial. It was never intended
to operate as an additional and independent punishment
superimposed upon a person who is, in the eye of law, still presumed
innocent.
13. It is well settled that the right to travel abroad is an integral facet of
“personal liberty” within the meaning of Article 21 of the Constitution,
and any restriction thereon must answer the test of being fair, just and
reasonable, and not fanciful, oppressive or arbitrary. Consequently,
the discretion conferred upon a criminal Court while considering an
application for grant of permission/NOC under the aforesaid
Notification is not an unguided or unfettered one; it is a jurisdiction
coupled with a duty to balance two competing interests, namely, the
legitimate concern of the State and the prosecution to secure the
Page 8
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 15-Jul-2026 19:52:23
presence of the accused for a fair and effective trial, on the one hand,
and the fundamental right of the accused to travel abroad and pursue
his lawful vocation, on the other. Neither interest is absolute, and the
exercise of discretion cannot be allowed to degenerate into a rule of
automatic refusal merely because a criminal case happens to be
pending.
14. This position finds resonance in the consistent line of judicial
pronouncements on the subject, which draw a clear distinction
between mere pendency of a criminal trial and a final adjudication of
guilt. Courts have repeatedly clarified that Section 6(2)(f) does not
contemplate an absolute or automatic embargo on issuance or renewal
of a passport solely on account of pendency of criminal proceedings;
the bar is not attracted at the stage of investigation, and even at the
stage of trial, the underlying Notification does not require the
concerned Court to grant, in every case, a blanket prior permission
before it can be said that the accused is entitled to travel and it obliges
the Court to apply its mind to the facts of the given case. What the law
disapproves of is the treatment of Section 6(2)(f) as a rigid, one-size-
fits-all threshold bar, divorced from the nature of the offence, the
stage of the proceedings, and the conduct of the accused during the
pendency of trial.
15. Tested on this touchstone, the impugned order does not withstand
scrutiny. A perusal of the order dated 02.09.2025 discloses that the
learned Court below has done little beyond reproducing the text of
Section 6(2)(f) and noting the fact of pendency of G.R. Case
Page 9
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 15-Jul-2026 19:52:23
No.336/2017. There is no discernible application of judicial mind to
factors that ought ordinarily to weigh with a Court while considering
such an application, namely, (i) the nature and gravity of the offence
alleged; (ii) the stage at which the proceeding stands; (iii) whether the
accused has, at any point, evinced an intention to abscond or evade
the process of the Court; (iv) the conduct of the accused during the
pendency of the case; and (v) whether the ends of justice would be
equally well served by imposition of suitable safeguards short of an
outright refusal. An order that forecloses a valuable right without
engaging with these considerations, and without recording reasons
demonstrating why the lesser alternative of conditional permission
was found unworkable, is reduced to a non-speaking order, which is
impermissible, more so when it touches upon a facet of personal
liberty.
16. The facts on record, when juxtaposed against this legal position, only
reinforce the above conclusion. The offence alleged against the
Petitioner arises out of a property dispute of a civil complexion, said
to have culminated in a decree obtained before the Civil Court, and
the criminal complaint under Sections 209/210/420/468/471/34 of the
I.P.C. is, in substance, an offshoot of that underlying civil lis. The
proceeding is admittedly at a nascent stage wherein cognizance
having been taken but not a single witness examined till date. Out of
eleven accused persons, only the present Petitioner has, till date,
appeared and been enlarged on bail; significantly, the order granting
him bail did not impose any condition requiring him to surrender his
Page 10
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 15-Jul-2026 19:52:23
passport or to seek leave of the Court prior to travel. This
circumstance is telling, for it shows that even the Court which granted
bail did not, at that stage, perceive the Petitioner to be a flight risk
warranting curtailment of his movement. It would, therefore, be
incongruous for the same Petitioner to be denied an NOC for passport
renewal on an undifferentiated apprehension that finds no
corresponding reflection in the terms of his bail.
17. This Court is not oblivious to the legitimate apprehension voiced by
the learned counsel for the Opposite Party that the case is at a nascent
stage and that several co-accused are yet to appear before the Court
below. That, however, is a consideration which can be adequately
addressed by calibrated conditions rather than a blanket denial. The
learned Court below, while examining such an application, is not
confined to a binary choice of “grant” or “refuse”; it is equally open to
it to grant permission subject to safeguards like furnishing an
undertaking to appear before the Court on all dates fixed, intimating
the Court of the travel itinerary and duration in advance, furnishing
adequate surety, or limiting the validity/purpose of travel thereby
reconciling the Petitioner’s right to travel with the imperative of
securing his presence for trial. The failure of the Court below to even
advert to this via media, and its resort instead to a straightforward,
undifferentiated refusal, betrays a mechanical application of Section
6(2)(f), rather than the balanced, fact-sensitive exercise of discretion
that the provision, read with the enabling Notification, contemplates.
Page 11
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 15-Jul-2026 19:52:23
18. It is also relevant to observe that the Petitioner did not approach the
Passport Authority directly in defiance of the statutory scheme; he
approached this Court by way of W.P.(C) No.37698 of 2023, pursuant
to which he was directed to seek the appropriate permission from the
Court below in seisin of the criminal case. Having thus followed the
due procedure contemplated in law, the Petitioner cannot be non-
suited merely on the ground that the proceeding against him is
pending, without the Court below first examining whether the grant
of conditional permission would sufficiently safeguard the interest of
the prosecution.
V. CONCLUSION:
19.For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the considered view that the
impugned order dated 02.09.2025 passed by the learned S.D.J.M.,
Malkangiri, being unreasoned, mechanical, and reflective of a non-
application of mind to the relevant factors germane to the grant or
refusal of permission under Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967
read with Notification No.GSR 570(E) dated 25.08.1993, cannot be
sustained in the eye of law and is liable to be set aside. Accordingly,
the present petition is allowed.
20.Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.
(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated the 14th July, 2026/-
Page 12
