Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Dileep Singh @ Rahul Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:13393) on 18 March, 2026
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2026:RJ-JD:13393]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1573/2026
Dileep Singh @ Rahul Singh S/o Shri Bheru Singh, Aged About
26 Years, R/o Meeno Ka Vaas, Jawai Bandh, Tehsil Sumerpur,
District Pali (Rajsthan)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Lalita W/o Omji, R/o Jawai Bandh, Tehsil Sumerpur,
District Pali (Raj)
3. Regional Passport Office, Jodhpur (Raj)
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hitendra Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Chundawat, Dy.G.A.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
18/03/2026
1. The present criminal misc. petition, preferred under Article
226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner
against the order dated 28.01.2026 passed by the learned Special
Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Pali in Criminal
Case No.69/2025 arising out of FIR No.69/2025 registered at
Police Station Sumerpur, District Pali, for the offences punishable
under Sections 333, 115(2), 74, 324(4)/3(5) of the BNSS and
Section 3(1)(r)(s)(wi) & 3 (2)(va) of the SC/ST Act.
1.1 By way of the present petition, the petitione prayed that
permission be granted for renewal/re-issuance of his passport
together with consequential permission to travel abroad.
(Uploaded on 23/03/2026 at 03:12:21 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/03/2026 at 04:57:37 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13393] (2 of 9) [CRLMP-1573/2026]
2. Briefly stating the facts of the case that the petitioner, an
accused on bail in Criminal Case No.69/2025 arising out of FIR
No.69/2025 registered at Police Station Sumerpur, District Pali, for
the offences punishable under Sections 333, 115(2), 74,
324(4)/3(5) of the BNSS and Section 3(1)(r)(s)(wi) & 3 (2)(va) of
the SC/ST Act. has been facing trial. Despite repeated permissions
granted by the Trial Court, his passport was not issued thereby
restricting his right to travel abroad for employment, which has
led him to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court seeking
renewal of his passport for the standard period of ten years.
3. This Court has dealt with the similar issue in the case of
Balkaran Singh v. State of Rajasthan [S.B. Criminal
Misc(Pet.) No. 7824/2022] dated 21.11.2022. The relevant
paragraphs of the order are being reproduced herein below:-
“It is significant to note here that the Passports Act, 1967
does not confer absolute power upon a citizen to obtain
passport. Section 6(1) & (2) of the Act prescribe certain
conditions/eventualities when the passport authority is
required to turn down request to make an endorsement or
issue passport which includes a condition when an applicant
is an accused in a criminal case. Relevant extract of section
6(2) is reproduced hereinbelow:-
“(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;
(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;
(Uploaded on 23/03/2026 at 03:12:21 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/03/2026 at 04:57:37 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13393] (3 of 9) [CRLMP-1573/2026]
(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
and sentenced in respect thereof to
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.”
To diminish the rigour of sub-section (2)(f) of section
6, the Central Government has issued a notification dated
28.06.1993 which enables the passport authority to issue
passport even in the case of a person covered by clause (f)
of sub-section (2) of section 6 of the Act. The notification
dated 28.06.1993 is reproduced as under in its entirety:-
“GSR 570(E)- In exercise of the powers conferred by
clause (a) of Section 22 of the Passports Act, 1967 (15
of 1967) and in supersession of the notification of the
Government of India in the Ministry of External Affairs
No. GSR 298(E) dated the 14″ April 1976, the Central
Government, being of the opinion that it is necessary
ni public interest to do so, hereby exempts citizens of
India against whom proceedings in respect of an
offence alleged to have been committed by them are
pending before a criminal court in India and who
produce orders from the court concerned permitting
them to depart from India, from the operation of the
provisions of Clause (f) of sub-
section (2) of Section 6 of the said Act, subject to the
following conditions, namely:-
(a) the passport to be issued to every such citizen shall
be issued –
(i) for the period specified in order of the court referred
to above, if the court specifies a period for which the(Uploaded on 23/03/2026 at 03:12:21 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/03/2026 at 04:57:37 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13393] (4 of 9) [CRLMP-1573/2026]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.
(b) any passport issued in terms of (a)(ii) and (a)(iii)
above can be further renewed for one year at a time,
provided the applicant has not travelled abroad for the
period sanctioned by the court; and provided further
that, in the meantime, the order of the court is not
cancelled or modified;
(c) any passport issued in terms of (a)(i) above can be
further renewed only on the basis of afresh court order
specifying a further period of validity of the passport or
specifying a period for travel abroad;
(d) the said citizen shall given an undertaking in
writing to the passport issuing authority that he shall,
if required by the court concerned, appear before it at
any time during the continuance in force of the
passport so issued.”
The aforementioned notification provides that upon
production of an order from the Court, an application for
grant of passport shall be considered. In case the order of
the Court does not disclose the period for which the
passport is to be issued, then, the passport authority will
issue the passport for a period of one year only or as the
case may be.
An accused desirous of seeking permission or order of
getting exemption from rigour of clause (f) of section 6(2)
of the Act in terms of the notification dated 28.06.1993 may
or may not specify the period of stay and place of visit, but
in an appropriate case, Court can still consider his request
and pass an order in this regard. Court’s duty in dealing
with such ‘application’ is to see the nature of offence and
the necessity of travel. An order in terms of the notification
dated 28.06.1993 cannot be passed as a matter of
course/or in routine.
Notification dated 28.06.1993 requires the Court to
grant permission to travel abroad and on the basis of such
order, the passport is required to be issued. If such order
does not specify the period of travel, passport can be issued
for 1 year. Petitioner has stated in his application that his
(Uploaded on 23/03/2026 at 03:12:21 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/03/2026 at 04:57:37 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13393] (5 of 9) [CRLMP-1573/2026]
children reside in Australia and Canad and he is supposed to
visit them for social gatherings and family get togethers.
True it is that he has not given specific date or period of
travel but the trial Court should have passed order of
issuing passport. Passing of an order in terms of the
Notification dated 28.06.1993 is slightly different than grant
of permission to travel abroad.
In considered opinion of this Court the trial Court has
therefore, erred in rejecting petitioner’s application for
issuing passport, which was in essence an application for
order in terms of notification dated 28.06.1993. The order
of the trial Court is thus, liable to be set aside and thus this
Court persuaded to quash the same.
It is noteworthy that the petitioner is of 72 years old
man and the pendency of a criminal case is not an
impediment for the court for issuance of passport in these
circumstances, the passport authority should not refuse to
issue passport to the petitioner in the face of sub-section
(e) of section 6 of the Passports Act. Clause (e) provides for
refusal of passport where a person has been sentenced with
imprisonment for a period not below two years within the
five years preceding his application for passport under
section 5 of the Passports Act. The petitioner has not been
sentenced, hence he has not acquired any disqualification.
In light of the discussion made hereinabove, the
instant petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner
to make an application afresh before the competent
authority, following the procedure prescribed under section
5 of the Passports Act. If the petitioner prefers such an
application, the passport authority shall consider the same
in light of the relevant provisions of Passports Act as well as
of the instant order without being influenced by the order
passed by the trial Court on 13.07.2022.
The present petition is disposed of accordingly. The
stay application also stands disposed of.”
4. In Mahesh Kumar Agarwal v. Union of India & Ors.
[Civil Appeal No. 15096 of 2025 arising out of SLP (Civil) No.
17769 of 2025], decided on 19.12.2025, Hon’ble the Supreme
Court has authoritatively held that the right to hold a passport is
an intrinsic facet of the right to personal liberty guaranteed under
Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and that any denial thereof,
in the absence of just, fair and reasonable procedure, amounts to
an unreasonable restriction upon the liberty of the appellant. For
(Uploaded on 23/03/2026 at 03:12:21 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/03/2026 at 04:57:37 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13393] (6 of 9) [CRLMP-1573/2026]
the sake of ready reference and proper appreciation, the relevant
paragraphs of the said judgment are reproduced hereinbelow:
“20. It must also be noted that denial of renewal of a
passport does not operate in a vacuum. This Court has
repeatedly held in a catena of Judgments that the right to
travel abroad and the right to hold a passport are facets of
the right to personal liberty Under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India. Any restriction on that right must be
fair, just and reasonable, and must bear a rational nexus
with a legitimate purpose.
21. 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. That purpose is fully served in the present
case by the conditions imposed by the NIA Court, Ranchi,
and the Delhi High Court, which require the Appellant to
seek prior permission before any foreign travel and, in the
NIA case, to re-deposit the passport immediately after
renewal. To add to these safeguards an indefinite denial of
even a renewed passport, when both criminal courts have
consciously permitted renewal, would be a disproportionate
and unreasonable restriction on the Appellant’s liberty.”
5. In an identical matter, the Coordinate Bench of this Court has
elaborately discussed the issue in the case of Abhayjeet Singh
Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. 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 for a 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 10 years.
(Uploaded on 23/03/2026 at 03:12:21 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/03/2026 at 04:57:37 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13393] (7 of 9) [CRLMP-1573/2026]
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 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.
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
(Uploaded on 23/03/2026 at 03:12:21 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/03/2026 at 04:57:37 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13393] (8 of 9) [CRLMP-1573/2026]
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.”
6. In this view of the matter, the Criminal Misc. Petition is
disposed of in the following terms:-
a. The passport of the petitioner shall be issued with
a validity of ten years.
b. The order dated 28.01.2026 passed by the
learned learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act Cases, Pali in Criminal Case No.69/2025
arising out of FIR No.69/2025 is quashed and set side.
The petitioner shall be permitted to continue to travel
abroad. However, it is made clear that whenever the
learned Trial Court requires his personal presence, he
shall be informed to this effect through his lawyer and
upon such intimation, the petitioner shall appear before
the Court to assist in the due and expeditious conduct
of the trial.
c. The pendency of the criminal case arising out of
FIR No.69/2025 registered at Police Station Sumerpu
District Pali, shall not operate as an impediment to the
issuance of passport to the petitioner or to the grant of
visa for travel abroad, subject to the condition that the
petitioner furnishes a personal bond in the sum of
Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only), along with(Uploaded on 23/03/2026 at 03:12:21 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/03/2026 at 04:57:37 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13393] (9 of 9) [CRLMP-1573/2026]two surety bonds of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs
only) each, to be executed by his father and mother,
respectively.
d. The petitioner shall further file an undertaking to
the effect that in the event of breach or violation of any
of the conditions imposed by this Court, his surety
bond so furnished shall be forfeited and amenable to
recovery. It is further directed that the father and
mother of the petitioner shall also file separate
undertakings to the same effect, affirming that the
sureties furnished by them shall likewise be liable to
forfeiture and recovery in the event the petitioner
commits any breach of the conditions so imposed.
7. The stay petition and all pending applications also stands
disposed of.
(FARJAND ALI),J
151-Mamta/-
(Uploaded on 23/03/2026 at 03:12:21 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/03/2026 at 04:57:37 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
