Punjab-Haryana High Court
Naresh vs Union Of India And Ors on 20 April, 2026
CWP-17945-2025 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
220 CWP-17945-2025 (O&M)
Date of decision: 20.04.2026
Naresh
....Petitioner
Vs.
Union of India and others
....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSH BUNGER
Present: Mr. Deepak Jaglan, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Ms. Monica Chawla, Advocate
for respondents No.1 and 2/UOI.
Mr. Abhimanyu Antil, DAG, Haryana.
*****
HARSH BUNGER J.
1 Petition herein is, filed under Articles 226/227 of the
Constitution of India, inter alia, seeking a writ in the nature of Mandamus,
for directing the respondents authorities to issue passport to the petitioner.
2. Briefly, the petitioner applied for passport vide application
dated 14.03.2024, however, an adverse police verification report was
submitted in respect of the petitioner, stating that a criminal case bearing FIR
No.116 dated 13.05.2021 under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC was registered
against the petitioner at Police Station Rajaund, Kaithal.
3. It appears that the Passport Authorities issued a show cause
notice dated 27.05.2024 (Annexure P-5) to the petitioner, seeking an
explanation from him, regarding the circumstances under which he had
ANKIT
2026.05.01 17:42
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh
CWP-17945-2025 (O&M) -2-
suppressed the material information; the relevant extract of the show cause
notice reads as under:-
“Subject: Clarifications required regarding Issuance of
Passport facilities to Shri NARESH
Dear Sir,
This is in reference to receipt of an adverse Police
Verification Report corresponding to your application for
passport issue with file mobile number CH6069579298824
dated 08/05/2024.
You are therefore, called upon to provide a suitable
explanation within 30 days. Please note that you are required to
furnish a proper explanation regarding the circumstances under
which you had suppressed the material information in your
passport application. Please be informed that in case of non
response within the specified period, or a non-satisfactory
response, your will be rejected under section 6 (2) of the
Passport Act, 1967 unless cleared in appeal by the PSP
Division.
You could choose to submit the required documents to the
Enquiry Officer at the Regional Passport Office between. 9:30
AM to 12:30 PM only or all working days (Except Wednesday,
Friday)”
4. It is stated that the petitioner responded to the aforesaid show
cause notice by submitting his reply dated 08.06.2024 (Annexure P-6),
wherein it was clearly mentioned that no material information had been
suppressed by the petitioner in his passport application, as the factum of FIR
No. 116 dated 13.05.2021 was duly mentioned in the application for
issuance of passport; accordingly, prayer was made for issuance of passport.
ANKIT
2026.05.01 17:42
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh
CWP-17945-2025 (O&M) -3-
5. It transpires that the Passport Authorities vide subsequent letter
dated 17.01.2025 (Annexure P-8), called upon the petitioner to submit the
permission to depart from India from the concerned Trial Court as per the
provisions of G.S.R. 570(E) dated 25.08.1993, within a period of 30 days,
failing which the passport was to be denied to the petitioner.
6. In the aforementioned circumstances, the petitioner approached
this Court by filing a writ petition (CWP-15871-2024), which came to be
withdrawn by the petitioner with liberty to approach the learned trial Court,
so as to seek permission to depart from India in terms of Government
Instructions issued vide G.S.R. 570(E) dated 25.08.1993.
7. Thereafter, the petitioner is stated to have submitted an
application before concerned trial Court seeking permission to travel abroad,
however, the said application came to be dismissed by learned Judicial
Magistrate 1st Class, Kaithal, vide order dated 20.05.2025 (Annexure P-11).
8. In the aforementioned circumstances, the present writ petition
has been filed before this Court, for seeking relief(s) as noticed hereinabove.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the
order dated 20.05.2025 (Annexure P-11) is arbitrary, contrary to law and
violative of petitioner’s fundamental right to travel. It is submitted that, there
is no concealment/suppression on the part of the petitioner as the factum of
pending FIR was duly mentioned in the application for seeking passport. It is
contended that a person can seek permission to go abroad or depart from
India only by giving details of his passport, visa, travel itinerary; which the
petitioner would be unable to provide at this stage since there is no passport
ANKIT
2026.05.01 17:42
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh
CWP-17945-2025 (O&M) -4-
with the petitioner. Accordingly, it is submitted that the Passport Authorities
have erred in fact and law in refusing the facility of passport to the
petitioner.
10. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents No.1 and 2 has opposed the submissions raised on behalf of the
petitioner by submitting that Section 6(2)(f) of the Passport Act, 1967 (in
short ‘1967 Act), empowers the passport authorities to refuse issuance of
passport or travel documents to a person against whom criminal proceedings
are pending before a Court in India. A reference is made to Government
Instructions/Notification G.S.R. 570(E), which provides an exemption from
the operation of Section 6(2)(f) in cases where the individual obtains a Court
order permitting departure from India. It is further submitted that in terms of
the aforesaid Government notification, the petitioner must firstly obtain
explicit permission from the competent Court to travel abroad or depart from
India, failing which no passport can be issued. Accordingly, it is asserted
that, since the learned trial Court has not granted permission to the petitioner
to travel abroad, therefore, the passport to the petitioner has been rightly
declined.
11. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
paperbook with their able assistance.
12. The Hon’ble Apex Court in “Maneka Gandhi v. Union of
India” reported in 1978 (1) SCC 248, held that no person can be deprived
of his right to go abroad unless there is a law enabling the State to do so and
ANKIT
2026.05.01 17:42
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh
CWP-17945-2025 (O&M) -5-
such law contains fair, reasonable and just procedure. Hon’ble the Apex
Court made the following observations:
“Thus, no person can be deprived of his right to, go abroad
unless there is a law made by the State prescribing the
procedure for so depriving him and the deprivation is effected
strictly in accordance with such procedure. It was for this
reason, in order to comply with the requirement of Article 21,
that Parliament enacted the Passports Act, 1967 for
regulating the right to go abroad. It is clear from the
provisions of the Passports, Act, 1967 that is lays down the
circumstances under which a passport may be issued or
refused or cancelled or impounded and also prescribes a
procedure for doing so, but the question is whether that is
sufficient compliance with Article 21. Is the prescription of
some sort of procedure enough or must the procedure comply
with any particular requirements? Obviously, procedure
cannot be arbitrary, unfair or unreasonable. This indeed was
conceded by the learned Attorney General who with his usual
candour frankly stated that it was not possible for him to
contend that any procedure howsoever arbitrary, oppressive
or unjust may be prescribed by the law …”
12.1 In “Satish Chandra Verma v. Union of India (UOI) and
others“, 2019 SCC Online (SC) 2048; the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as
under:
“The right to travel abroad is an important basic human
right for it nourishes independent and self-determining creative
character of the individual, not only by extending his freedoms
of action, but also by extending the scope of his experience.
The right also extends to private life; marriage, family and
friendship which are the basic humanities which can beANKIT
2026.05.01 17:42
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh
CWP-17945-2025 (O&M) -6-affected through refusal of freedom to go abroad and this
freedom is a genuine human right.”
12.2 Hon’ble Apex Court in “Sumit Mehta v. State of NCT of
Delhi“, 2013 (15) SCC 570, observed as under:
“The law presumes an accused to be innocent till his
guilt is proved. As a presumable innocent person, he is entitled
to all the fundamental rights including the right to liberty
guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”
12.3 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Vangala Kasturi
Rangacharyulu v. Central Bureau of Investigation“, 2020 Crl. L J. (SC)
572; had an occasion to examine the issue of pendency of criminal cases in
the light of the provisions of the Passports Act, 1967. The petitioner therein
was convicted in a case for the offences under Sections 420 IPC and also
Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988, against which, an appeal was filed and the same was dismissed,
however the sentence was reduced to a period of one (01) year. The
petitioner therein approached the Apex Court by way of filing an appeal and
the same was pending. In those circumstances, Hon’ble Apex court held that
refusal of a passport can be only in case where an applicant is convicted
during the period of five (05) years immediately preceding the date of
application for an offence involving moral turpitude and sentence for
imprisonment was not less than two years. It was observed that Section 6(2)
(f) of 1967 Act relates to a situation where the applicant is facing trial in a
criminal Court. Therefore, considering the said facts, the Apex Court held
that Passport Authority cannot refuse renewal of the passport on the ground
ANKIT
2026.05.01 17:42
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh
CWP-17945-2025 (O&M) -7-
of pendency of the criminal appeal. Thus, the Hon’ble Apex Court directed
the Passport Authority to issue the passport of the applicant without raising
the objection relating to the pendency of the aforesaid criminal appeal in
Supreme Court.
12.4 In “Wassan Singh Versus Union of India”, 2023 (3) RCR (C)
786, a coordinate bench of this Court has also held that mere pendency of
FIR itself is no ground for refusal or non issuance of passport to the
applicant. The relevant extracts thereof reads as under :-
“A perusal of section 6 of the Passports Act would show that
mere pendency of an FIR itself is no ground for refusal or non-
issuance of passport to the applicant. This Court had also
occasioned to deal with an identical issue in the case of Daler
Singh v. Union of India and others(Supra) and Sahib Jaskaran
Singh v. Union of India and others(Supra). So far as allegation
of suppression of facts pertaining to FIRs at the time of
application filed by the petitioner is concerned, Section 6 does
not lay down any ground that on the basis of suppression of
pendency of an FIR, a passport can be refused. So far as
suppression in case of impounding is concerned, Section 10
deals with the same but a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in
Sukhdeep Singh v. Union of India and another(Supra) also dealt
with this issue that even in that case as well, the suppression of
FIR itself cannot become a ground for impounding of the
passport. However, the present case does not pertain to
impounding of the passport but it pertains to grant/issue of
passport and therefore, the case of the petitioner is governed by
section 6 of the Passports Act.”
ANKIT
2026.05.01 17:42
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh
CWP-17945-2025 (O&M) -8-
12.5 In "Ganni Bhaskara Rao v. Union of India", 2022 AIR
(Andhra Pradesh); Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court observed as under:-
“5. This Court also holds that merely because a person is an
accused in a case it cannot be said that he cannot “hold” or
possess a passport. As per our jurisprudence every person is
presumed innocent unless he is proven guilty. Therefore, the
mere fact that a criminal case is pending against the person is
not a ground to conclude that he cannot possess or hold a
passport. Even under section 10 (d) of the Passports Act, the
passport can be impounded only if the holder has been
convicted of an offence involving “moral turpitude” to
imprisonment of not less than two years. The use of the
conjunction ‘and’ makes it clear that both the ingredients must
be present. Every conviction is not a ground to impound the
passport. If this is the situation post-conviction, in the opinion
of this Court, the pendency of a case / cases is not a ground to
refuse, renewal or to demand the surrender of a passport…”
13. Recently, Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Mahesh Kumar
Aggarwal versus Union of India & Another, SLP(C) No. 17769 of 2025
(Decided on 19.12.2025); while dealing with a matter concerning issuance /
renewal of passport to a person involved in various criminal matters
(wherein he was also convicted in one matter); observed as under:-
“8. From a conjoint reading of Sections 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the
Passports Act, a structured scheme emerges. Section 5 is the
starting point. It prescribes the manner in which an application
for a passport is to be made and requires the passport
authority, subject to the other provisions of the Act, to decide
the application by issuing or refusing the passport through a
written order. Section 6 qualifies that power and sets out, in anANKIT
2026.05.01 17:42
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh
CWP-17945-2025 (O&M) -9-exhaustive manner, the grounds on which the passport
authority shall refuse to issue a passport or travel document.
Sub-section (1) deals with refusal of endorsements for
particular countries. Sub-section (2) governs refusal of issue
itself and again begins with the words “subject to the other
provisions of this Act”. It obliges the authority to refuse issue
where any of the situations in clauses (a) to (i) are present,
including the pendency of criminal proceedings before a court
in India under clause (f). Section 7 then addresses the duration
of a passport. It provides that a passport shall continue in force
for such period as may be prescribed, but also permits the
authority, for reasons to be communicated in writing to the
applicant, to issue a passport for a shorter period in an
appropriate case. Section 8 deals with the converse situation
where a passport has already been issued for a shorter period.
It permits extension of such a passport, but expressly states that
the provisions of the Act shall apply to such extension as they
apply to the issue of the passport, thereby linking an extension
back to the same statutory conditions and limitations that
govern original issue under Sections 5 and 6.
9. Sections 9, 10 and 22 reinforce and complete this
framework. Section 9 enables the Central Government, by
rules, to prescribe the conditions subject to which and the form
in which a passport shall be issued or renewed. It also permits,
with prior approval of the Central Government, the imposition
of case-specific conditions in addition to the prescribed ones.
Section 10 operates at a later stage and deals with the life of a
passport after it has been issued. It empowers the passport
authority, in defined situations, to require production of the
passport and to impound or revoke it. One such situation, under
Section 10(3)(e), is where proceedings in respect of an offenceANKIT
2026.05.01 17:42
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh
CWP-17945-2025 (O&M) -10-alleged to have been committed by the holder are pending
before a criminal court in India. Section 22 then confers on the
Central Government the power, where it considers it necessary
or expedient in the public interest, to exempt any person or
class of persons from the operation of specified provisions of
the Act or the Rules, subject to conditions. It is in exercise of
this power that GSR 570(E) was issued, creating a controlled
exemption from the bar in Section 6(2)(f) in favour of persons
facing criminal proceedings who obtain permission from the
concerned court and comply with the conditions set out in that
notification.
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.
ANKIT
2026.05.01 17:42
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh
CWP-17945-2025 (O&M) -11-
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 criminal 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.
xxx xxx xxx
13. The Calcutta High Court has treated Section 6(2)(f) as
an unyielding bar so long as any criminal proceeding is
pending, unless the criminal court simultaneously authorises a
specific foreign trip for a defined period. That reading unduly
narrows the effect of GSR 570(E). Nothing in the Passports Act
requires the criminal court to convert every permission into a
one-time licence to undertake a particular journey. The statute
equally permits the court to allow renewal of the passport while
retaining complete control over each instance of foreign travel
by insisting on its prior leave, as both courts have done in the
present case.
xxx xxx xxx
15. The reasoning of the learned Single Judge proceeds on
the basis that, once Section 6(2)(f) is attracted, renewal of a
passport is virtually ruled out unless the criminal court, at the
same time, permits a particular foreign trip for a specified
duration. With respect, this approach overlooks two features of
the statutory scheme. First, Section 6(2)(f) is a ground forANKIT
2026.05.01 17:42
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh
CWP-17945-2025 (O&M) -12-refusal at the stage of issue or re-issue, but it is expressly made
subject to “the other provisions” of the Act, which include
Section 22 and the exemption carved out through GSR 570(E).
Second, GSR 570(E) does not compel the criminal court to
authorise a particular journey. It proceeds on the broader
premise that where the criminal court permits the applicant to
depart from India and the period of validity can be anchored
either in the court’s order or in the default periods mentioned
in the notification, the embargo in Section 6(2)(f) stands lifted
to that extent. In the present case, both criminal courts have
adopted a different but equally legitimate method of control by
allowing renewal while reserving to themselves the power to
regulate each instance of foreign travel. That method satisfies
the statutory concern of securing the accused’s presence as
effectively as, if not more effectively than, a one-time
permission for a single trip.
16. The respondents and the Calcutta High Court have also
treated the expression “permission to depart from India” in
GSR 570(E) as if it necessarily refers only to a concrete
permission for an immediately proposed journey. We do not
read the notification in so narrow a manner. Where, as here,
the conditions of bail already stipulate that the appellant shall
not leave the country without prior permission of the court
concerned, and the same court then grants no objection to
renewal of the passport without relaxing that condition, the
requirement that departure from India shall be subject to
judicial permission is built into the very terms of the exemption.
The passport authority is not required, at the renewal stage, to
demand a schedule of future journeys or visas which may not
yet exist. Its task is to see whether, despite pending
proceedings, the criminal courts have chosen to keep theANKIT
2026.05.01 17:42
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh
CWP-17945-2025 (O&M) -13-possibility of travel open under their supervision. Once that
position is clear, GSR 570(E) applies and the bar under Section
6(2)(f) cannot be invoked to refuse renewal altogether.
xxx xxx xxx
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 judgements 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.
22. 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. In the present case, both criminalANKIT
2026.05.01 17:42
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh
CWP-17945-2025 (O&M) -14-courts have done exactly that. To refuse renewal on the
speculative apprehension that the appellant might misuse the
passport is, in effect, to second-guess the criminal courts’
assessment of risk and to assume for the passport authority a
supervisory role which the statute does not envisage.
xxx xxx xxx
24. Finally, even on the respondents’ own reading of GSR
570(E), the consequence of an order which does not specify a
longer period of validity is that the passport should be issued
for a shorter duration, usually one year, and not that renewal
must be refused altogether. The learned Single Judge and the
Division Bench did not examine this aspect, because they
proceeded on the premise that the appellant stood outside the
exemption altogether. Once it is recognised that the appellant is
within the exempted class, the correct question for the passport
authority is the appropriate period of validity in the facts of the
case, not whether any renewal is permissible at all. In the
present matter, given that the Delhi High Court has expressly
authorised renewal for ten years and the NIA Court has
imposed stringent conditions including redeposit and prior
permission for travel, we see no justification to curtail the
normal period of validity.
25. In the light of the above discussion, we are unable to
sustain the approach adopted by the learned Single Judge and
the Division Bench. Both have treated Section 6(2)(f) as an
absolute bar so long as any criminal proceeding is pending,
without giving full effect to the statutory exemption mechanism
under Section 22 and GSR 570(E), and without adequately
appreciating that the criminal courts actually dealing with the
appellant’s cases have consciously permitted renewal while
retaining stringent control over any foreign travel. They have,ANKIT
2026.05.01 17:42
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh
CWP-17945-2025 (O&M) -15-in effect, converted a qualified restriction, designed to secure
the presence of an accused, into a near-permanent disability to
hold a valid passport, even where the criminal courts
themselves do not consider such a disability necessary.
xxx xxx xxx
27. It is needless to observe that nothing in this judgment
curtails the powers of the passport authority under Section 10
of the Passports Act. If any future order of a competent court,
or any subsequent development, requires impounding or
revocation of the appellant’s passport, it shall be open to the
authority to act in accordance with Section 10 and other
applicable provisions. Equally, if the appellant violates any
condition imposed by the NIA Court, Ranchi, or the Delhi High
Court, it will be open to those courts to take such steps,
including modification of bail and recall of permissions, as may
be warranted.
28. In the result, the appeal is allowed…”
14. From the above-referred judicial pronouncements, the
following position emerges:-
(i) 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.
(ii) It is important to keep distinct the possession of a valid
passport and the act of travelling abroad.
(iii) 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.
ANKIT
2026.05.01 17:42
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh
CWP-17945-2025 (O&M) -16-
(iv) The legitimate purpose behind Section 6(2)(f) and Section
10(3)(e) of the passport Act, 1967; is to ensure that a person
facing criminal proceedings remains amenable to the
jurisdiction of the criminal court.
(v) An accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty and is
entitled to all fundamental rights, including personal liberty
under Article 21.
(vi) Section 6(2)(f) of the Passport Act, 1967 is a ground for
refusal at the stage of issue or re-issue, but it is expressly made
subject to “the other provisions” of the Act, which include
Section 22 and the exemption carved out through Government
Notification GSR 570(E).
(vii) Notification GSR 570(E) 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.
(viii) Notification GSR 570(E) structures the exercise of
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.
(ix) Notification GSR 570(E) does not 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 “departANKIT
2026.05.01 17:42
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh
CWP-17945-2025 (O&M) -17-
from India” for specified dates as a jurisdictional precondition
to the very issue or re-issue of a passport.
(x) Notification GSR 570(E) does not compel the criminal court
to authorise a particular journey. It proceeds on the broader
premise that where the criminal court permits the applicant to
depart from India and the period of validity can be anchored
either in the court’s order or in the default periods mentioned
in the notification, the embargo in Section 6(2)(f) stands lifted
to that extent.
(xi) The passport authority is not required, at the renewal stage,
to demand a schedule of future journeys or visas which may not
yet exist. Its task is to see whether, despite pending
proceedings, the criminal courts have chosen to keep the
possibility of travel open under their supervision. Once that
position is clear, GSR 570(E) applies and the bar under Section
6(2)(f) cannot be invoked to refuse renewal altogether.
(xii) To refuse renewal on the speculative apprehension that the
appellant might misuse the passport is, in effect, to second-
guess the criminal courts’ assessment of risk and to assume for
the passport authority a supervisory role which the statute does
not envisage.
(xiii) Once the competent criminal court, being fully conscious
of the pending proceedings, grants permission or records a “No
Objection” for renewal of a passport subject to appropriate
conditions, the passport authority is bound to give effect to such
order and cannot sit in appeal over, or second-guess, the
satisfaction recorded by the said court.
15. Keeping in view the above, I find substance in the contention
raised on behalf of the petitioner that a person can approach trial Court to
ANKIT
2026.05.01 17:42
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh
CWP-17945-2025 (O&M) -18-
seek permission to go abroad or depart from India, only by giving details of
his passport, visa, travel itinerary, etc.
16. In view of the above discussion, I am of the considered view
that the purpose and intent for which the Notification (GSR 570(E) dated
25.08.1993) has been issued can be well served and protected by issuing
necessary directions in this matter. Accordingly, the impugned order dated
20.05.2025 (Annexure P-11) is set aside and the instant writ petition is
disposed of with the following directions :-
i) The petitioner herein shall submit an undertaking along with
an affidavit before the trial Court concerned in the case
wherein petitioner is facing trial, stating that he will not leave
India during pendency of the said case without permission of
the Court and that he will co-operate with trial Court in
concluding the proceedings in the said case.
ii) On filing such an undertaking as well as affidavit, the trial
Court shall issue a certified copy of the same within two (02)
weeks therefrom;
iii) The petitioner herein shall submit certified copy of aforesaid
undertaking before the Respondent No.2- Regional Passport
Office for seeking renewal of his passport;
iv) The Respondent No.2- Regional Passport Office shall
consider the application of the petitioner for renewal of
passport in the light of the observations made by this Court
herein as well as the contents of the undertaking given by the
petitioner for renewal of his passport in accordance with law,
within three (03) weeks from the date when the petitioner
submits certified copies of undertaking in terms of direction
nos.(ii) and (iii) above;
ANKIT
2026.05.01 17:42
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh
CWP-17945-2025 (O&M) -19-
v) Upon preparation of the renewed passport, the petitioner
shall deposit the original renewed passport before the trial
Court where proceedings are pending in FIR No. 116 dated
13.05.2021, within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt
of passport by the petitioner;
vi) However, liberty is granted to the petitioner herein to file an
application before the concerned trial Court(s) for seeking
permission to travel abroad and it is for the concerned trial
Court(s) to consider the same in accordance with law.”
17. All the pending application(s), if any, shall also stand closed.
(HARSH BUNGER)
20.04.2026 JUDGE
ankit
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
ANKIT
2026.05.01 17:42
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh
