Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Mohammed Yasir vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:9001) on 18 February, 2026
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2026:RJ-JD:9001]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 661/2026
Mohammed Yasir S/o Mohammad Shakir, Aged About 40 Years,
Resident Of 187/a, Hinglaz Nagar, 6Th Puliya, Chopasani Road,
Jodhpur, Pin-342004 (Rajasthan)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Public Prosecutor
2. Union Of India, Through The Regional Passport Officer,
Jaipur, Regional Passport Office, Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajak Khan Haidar
Mr. Mohd. Asif Khan
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sri Ram Choudhary, AGA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
18/02/2026
1. The present criminal writ petition, preferred under Article
226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been filed by the
petitioner against the impugned order dated 03.02.2026 passed
by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (PCPNDT
Cases), Jodhpur Metro, District Jodhpur, in Criminal Regular Case
No.118/2023 arising out of FIR No.0101/2022 registered at Police
Station Mahila Thana, Jodhpur City (East), for the offences
punishable under Sections 498-A & 406 of the Indian Penal Code
whereby the learned Magistrate has rejected the application filed
by the petitioner for permission to renewal/reissuance of the
passport and to visit abroad.
(Uploaded on 20/02/2026 at 05:14:14 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/02/2026 at 08:19:15 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9001] (2 of 10) [CRLW-661/2026]
2. The succinct factual matrix giving rise to the present petition
is that the The Petitioner is facing trial in Criminal Regular Case
No. 118/2023 arising out of FIR No. 0101 dated 10.05.2022
registered at Police Station-Mahila Thana, Jodhpur City (East), for
offences under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC. The prosecution
emanates from a matrimonial dispute, and the Petitioner asserts
false implication. He is presently on bail and has complied with all
conditions.
2.1. Owing to the pendency of the case, the Petitioner has been
effectively restrained from renewing/reissuing his passport and
travelling abroad, which is essential for his livelihood and forms
part of his personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Petitioner moved two applications before the learned trial
Court seeking permission for passport renewal and foreign travel.
The same were rejected vide order dated 03.02.2026 without
assigning cogent reasons or duly considering the constitutional
dimensions of the relief sought.
2.2. The impugned order, being non-speaking and mechanical,
has resulted in unwarranted curtailment of the Petitioner’s
fundamental rights, compelling him to invoke the writ jurisdiction
of this Court. Hence the instant writ petition.
3. I have heard the counsel for the parties and gone through
the material as made available to this Court.
4. 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
(Uploaded on 20/02/2026 at 05:14:14 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/02/2026 at 08:19:15 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9001] (3 of 10) [CRLW-661/2026]
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.
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
(Uploaded on 20/02/2026 at 05:14:14 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/02/2026 at 08:19:15 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9001] (4 of 10) [CRLW-661/2026]
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
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)(Uploaded on 20/02/2026 at 05:14:14 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/02/2026 at 08:19:15 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9001] (5 of 10) [CRLW-661/2026]
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
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
(Uploaded on 20/02/2026 at 05:14:14 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/02/2026 at 08:19:15 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9001] (6 of 10) [CRLW-661/2026]
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
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
(Uploaded on 20/02/2026 at 05:14:14 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/02/2026 at 08:19:15 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9001] (7 of 10) [CRLW-661/2026]
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
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.
(Uploaded on 20/02/2026 at 05:14:14 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/02/2026 at 08:19:15 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9001] (8 of 10) [CRLW-661/2026]
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
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.
(Uploaded on 20/02/2026 at 05:14:14 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/02/2026 at 08:19:15 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9001] (9 of 10) [CRLW-661/2026]
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.
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.
(Uploaded on 20/02/2026 at 05:14:14 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/02/2026 at 08:19:15 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9001] (10 of 10) [CRLW-661/2026]
In view of the dicta followed in Pradeep Kumar Swarogi
(Supra), the denial of permission to pursue his vocation abroad
operates as a direct encroachment upon the Petitioner’s
constitutionally enshrined right to livelihood, an inextricable
facet of personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India. Such deprivation, absent compelling
justification, amounts to an unwarranted infringement of his
fundamental rights.
5. In light of the foregoing considerations, the present petition
merits partial acceptance and is accordingly allowed to the
extent indicated herein. It is hereby directed that the mere
pendency of the criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No.
0101/2022 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, Jodhpur
Metro, Jodhpur shall not constitute an impediment or
disqualification in the matter of issuance of a passport to the
Petitioner.
6. The competent Passport Authority is, therefore, mandated
to process and issue the passport in favour of the Petitioner,
disregarding the aforesaid criminal case as a disabling factor,
subject to compliance with other statutory formalities.
Consequent upon the adjudication of the main petition, the stay
application stands disposed of accordingly.
(FARJAND ALI),J
28-Mamta/-
(Uploaded on 20/02/2026 at 05:14:14 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/02/2026 at 08:19:15 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
