CWP-26195 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA (219) Varun Kumar Union of India CORAM: Present: KULDEEP TIWARI 1. direction upon the respondent same was denied, criminal cases against the petitioner. 2. counsel for the petitioner, as to whether, the petitioner has sought permission from learned against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner while referring to Annexure P in the other FIR, learned trial Court concerned, has declined by passing an order dated 27.10.2023 (Annexure P 3. petitioner, as to whether, 26195-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Kumar Versus Union of India and another HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Mr. Malkiat Singh Hundal, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Archana Vashisht, Central Govt. for respondents-Union of India. **** KULDEEP TIWARI, J.(ORAL) Through the instant petition, prayer is made for issuance of direction upon the respondent No.2, to issue passport to the petitioner, as the same was denied, without any cogent reasons, criminal cases against the petitioner. At the very outset, this Court has put a specific query to learned counsel for the petitioner, as to whether, the petitioner has sought permission learned trial Court concerned, where the FIRs are pending for trial against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner while referring to Annexure P-3, submits that in one FIR, the permission was granted, whereas, in the other FIR, learned trial Court concerned, has declined by passing an order dated 27.10.2023 (Annexure P This Court put a second query to learned counsel for the petitioner, as to whether, the order dated 27.10.2023 (Annexure P 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-26195-2025 Date of Decision : 06.07.2026 …Petitioner Versus ...Respondents KULDEEP TIWARI Malkiat Singh Hundal, Advocate Central Govt. Counsel Union of India. Through the instant petition, prayer is made for issuance of No.2, to issue passport to the petitioner, as the without any cogent reasons, on account of pendency of two At the very outset, this Court has put a specific query to learned counsel for the petitioner, as to whether, the petitioner has sought permission , where the FIRs are pending for trial against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner while referring to 3, submits that in one FIR, the permission was granted, whereas, in the other FIR, learned trial Court concerned, has declined the permission by passing an order dated 27.10.2023 (Annexure P-4). This Court put a second query to learned counsel for the the order dated 27.10.2023 (Annexure P-4), as Through the instant petition, prayer is made for issuance of a No.2, to issue passport to the petitioner, as the on account of pendency of two At the very outset, this Court has put a specific query to learned counsel for the petitioner, as to whether, the petitioner has sought permission , where the FIRs are pending for trial against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner while referring to 3, submits that in one FIR, the permission was granted, whereas, he permission This Court put a second query to learned counsel for the 4), as MANPREET SINGH 2026.07.10 12:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-26195 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tarn Tara challenge, or not, to which, he answered in negative. 4. until and unless, the petitioner gets permission from learned trial Court concerned, concerned, has rightly denied the application for issuance of a passport. Reference in this regard can be made to the judgment passed Supreme Court Agarwal vs. Union of India and another’ relevant Paragraph is extracted hereinafter : 26195-2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tarn Tara challenge, or not, to which, he answered in negative. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that until and unless, the petitioner gets permission from learned trial Court concerned, where he is facing a trial under the NDPS Act, concerned, has rightly denied the application for issuance of a passport. Reference in this regard can be made to the judgment passed Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.15096 of 2025 vs. Union of India and another’ relevant Paragraph is extracted hereinafter :- “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 durati approach overlooks two features of the statutory scheme. First, Section 6(2)(f) 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 2 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 can be anchored either in the court's order or in the default periods mentioned in the notification, the embargo in Section 6(2)(1) 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 2 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tarn Taran, has been put to challenge, or not, to which, he answered in negative. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that until and unless, the petitioner gets permission from learned trial Court where he is facing a trial under the NDPS Act, the authorities concerned, has rightly denied the application for issuance of a passport. Reference in this regard can be made to the judgment passed by Hon’ble Civil Appeal No.15096 of 2025, titled ‘Mahesh Kumar vs. Union of India and another’ decided on 19.12.2025. The - “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 for refusal at the stage of 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)(1) stands lifted to that extent. In the present case, both criminal courts have adopted a lly 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 n, has been put to In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that until and unless, the petitioner gets permission from learned trial Court the authorities concerned, has rightly denied the application for issuance of a passport. by Hon’ble ahesh Kumar decided on 19.12.2025. The “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 on. With respect, this approach overlooks two features of the statutory scheme. First, Section 6(2)(f) is a ground for refusal at the stage of issue, but it is expressly made subject to "the 2 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 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)(1) stands lifted to that extent. In the present case, both criminal courts have adopted a lly 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 MANPREET SINGH 2026.07.10 12:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-26195 5. 6. 27.10.2023 (Annexure P Tarn Taran, if so advised July 06, 2026 Manpreet 26195-2025 presence as effectively as, if not more effectiv one-time permission for a single trip.” In view of the above, the instant writ petition is However, the petitioner is at liberty to challenge the order dated 27.10.2023 (Annexure P-4), as passed by learned Additional , if so advised. 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 3 presence as effectively as, if not more effectively than, a time permission for a single trip.” , the instant writ petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to challenge the order dated as passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, (KULDEEP TIWARI) JUDGE : Yes/No : Yes/No ely than, a However, the petitioner is at liberty to challenge the order dated Sessions Judge, MANPREET SINGH 2026.07.10 12:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment