Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Safik Khokhar vs State Of Rajasthan … on 13 March, 2026
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2026:RJ-JD:12284-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Misc. Appli No. 170/2026
Safik Khokhar S/o Shri Alaudeen Khokhar, Aged About 30 Years,
R/o Khokhar Gali Ward No. 27, Sardar Sahar, Dist. Churu Raj.
(At Present On Bail, Sentence Suspended By This Hon'ble Court
Vide Order Dated 08-04-2024)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Harsh Shekhawat
For Respondent(s) : Mr. C.S. Ojha, AGA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHAH
Order
13/03/2026
1. The instant criminal miscellaneous application under Section
528 of the BNSS read with Section 430 of the BNSS has been
preferred on behalf of the applicant with a prayer that he may be
permitted to avail passport facilities and to undertake travel
abroad.
2. Briefly stating the facts of the case are that the applicant
was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment by the learned
trial court in Sessions Case No. 119/2017 vide judgment dated
20.12.2023 under, inter alia, Section 302/149 IPC. The said
conviction is under challenge before this Court in D.B. Criminal
Appeal No. 50/2024. While being on bail during the pendency of
the appeal, the applicant applied for passport facilities; however,
the Regional Passport Office Jaipur issued a show cause notice on
(Uploaded on 18/03/2026 at 04:08:52 PM)
(Downloaded on 19/03/2026 at 08:35:10 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:12284-DB] (2 of 10) [CRLMA-170/2026]
the ground of pendency of criminal proceedings, requiring the
applicant to obtain permission from this Court in terms of the
3. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the applicant and learned AGA as well as perused the material
available on record.
4. 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;
(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;
(Uploaded on 18/03/2026 at 04:08:52 PM)
(Downloaded on 19/03/2026 at 08:35:10 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:12284-DB] (3 of 10) [CRLMA-170/2026]
(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.”
4.1 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 in 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 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;
(Uploaded on 18/03/2026 at 04:08:52 PM)
(Downloaded on 19/03/2026 at 08:35:10 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:12284-DB] (4 of 10) [CRLMA-170/2026]
(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.”
4.2 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.
(Uploaded on 18/03/2026 at 04:08:52 PM)
(Downloaded on 19/03/2026 at 08:35:10 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:12284-DB] (5 of 10) [CRLMA-170/2026]
5. In the constitutional framework, the freedom to move and to
travel, though subject to regulation by law, forms an integral facet
of personal liberty protected under Article 21 of the Constitution of
India. While such freedom is not absolute, any regulatory restraint
must remain grounded in law and proportionate to the object
sought to be achieved, and cannot be permitted to assume the
character of a punitive or indefinite restriction in the absence of
adjudicated guilt. It is in this limited backdrop that the grievance
raised in the present application concerning issuance of the
applicant’s passport falls for consideration.
6. 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. [Civil Appeal No. 15096 of 2025 arising out of SLP (Civil) No.
17769 of 2025], decided on 19.12.2025. 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)
7. The Supreme Court has further explained the limited
statutory purpose underlying the restriction contained in Section
6(2)(f), holding:-
(Uploaded on 18/03/2026 at 04:08:52 PM)
(Downloaded on 19/03/2026 at 08:35:10 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:12284-DB] (6 of 10) [CRLMA-170/2026]“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)
8. 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.
9. 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)
10. The above distinction assumes particular significance in the
present case. The applicant has not sought permission to travel
abroad. The prayer is confined to issuance of the passport as a
civil document of identity. Issuance/Renewal of a passport, by
itself, does not dilute or override such judicial control.
11. 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)(Uploaded on 18/03/2026 at 04:08:52 PM)
(Downloaded on 19/03/2026 at 08:35:10 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:12284-DB] (7 of 10) [CRLMA-170/2026]
12. In this backdrop, withholding issuance/renewal of the
applicant’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 applicant is not a convicted person, continues to be bound by
judicial conditions regulating foreign travel, and there is nothing
on record to suggest that issuance/renewal of the passport would
prejudice the prosecution or impede the administration of justice.
13. 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 issuance/renewal ceases to bear a
rational nexus with the statutory object.
14. 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 issuance/renewal of a
(Uploaded on 18/03/2026 at 04:08:52 PM)
(Downloaded on 19/03/2026 at 08:35:10 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:12284-DB] (8 of 10) [CRLMA-170/2026]
passport into an indirect or anticipatory mechanism of travel
control.
15. The distinction between issuance/renewal of a passport and
permission to leave the country remains fundamental.
Issuance/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.
16. In the facts of the present case, the appeal preferred by the
appellant against his conviction, being D.B. Criminal Appeal No.
50/2024, already stands admitted by this Court for further
consideration and appreciation of evidence. Having regard to the
pendency of a large number of matters, there appears to be no
immediate likelihood of the appeal being taken up for final
disposal in the near future. It is also not in dispute that the
appellant has been enlarged on bail during the pendency of the
appeal and, as per the material available on record, no other
criminal case is reported to be pending against him. In these
circumstances, a blanket refusal to permit the appellant to obtain
a passport merely on account of the pendency of the appeal would
appear to be somewhat unreasonable. This Court is also conscious
of the fact that, should the appeal ultimately culminate in favour
of the appellant, the deprivation suffered by him in the
interregnum may not be capable of being undone. The loss
(Uploaded on 18/03/2026 at 04:08:52 PM)
(Downloaded on 19/03/2026 at 08:35:10 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:12284-DB] (9 of 10) [CRLMA-170/2026]
occasioned during the pendency of the appeal would remain
irreparable. Consequently, balancing the equities and the
circumstances obtaining in the case, this Court deems it
appropriate to direct that the appellant shall not be denied the
facility of obtaining a passport merely on the ground of pendency
of the appeal.
16. The present case stands at par with the case considered by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mahesh Kumar (supra), wherein the
appellant had suffered a conviction in a separate matter and his
sentence was suspended. In such circumstances, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court disapproved a rigid or mechanical application of
Section 6(2)(f). In the present case as well, the applicant, though
convicted by the learned trial court, has preferred an appeal and
the sentence stands suspended by this Court. Thus, the mere
existence of a conviction, by itself, cannot justify an automatic
denial or curtailment of passport rights without due application of
mind.
17. As regards the period of validity, this Court finds no legal or
rational basis to direct a truncated or short-term
issuance/renewal. The criminal case arises from an FIR of the year
2017 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 applicant, to
repeatedly approach the Passport Authority or the Court for
issuance/renewal at short intervals, despite not seeking
permission to travel abroad, would impose an unreasonable and
(Uploaded on 18/03/2026 at 04:08:52 PM)
(Downloaded on 19/03/2026 at 08:35:10 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:12284-DB] (10 of 10) [CRLMA-170/2026]
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 issuance/renewal
for the full standard validity period prescribed under law.
18. For the reasons aforesaid, the instant application is allowed.
Accordingly, it is ordered that the passport of the appellant may
be issued in accordance with law, notwithstanding the pendency of
the appeal before this Court.
19. The applicant shall place a copy of this order before the
concerned Regional Passport Officer, who shall process and
issue/renew the applicant’s passport for the full standard validity
period of ten years, subject to fulfillment of statutory
requirements and in accordance with law.
20. Issuance/Renewal of the passport shall not, by itself, entitle
the applicant to travel abroad. Prior permission of the competent
criminal court shall be obtained before any such travel.
21. 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.
(SANDEEP SHAH),J (FARJAND ALI),J
87-Mamta/-
(Uploaded on 18/03/2026 at 04:08:52 PM)
(Downloaded on 19/03/2026 at 08:35:10 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
