IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) \ -0' o THURSDAY ,THE SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE -'H PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 2092 OF 2025 Between: Dhana Puma Chandra Rao Atiuri, S/o Prasad Atiuri, Aged about 23 years, Occu Student, R/o 2-20, Madicherla Village, Bapulapadu Mandal Krishna District-521105. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The Union Of India, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs, South Block, Secretariat, Raisina Hills, New Delhi. 2. The Regional Passport Officer, O/o Regional Passport Office, Ground Floor, Stalin Central, D.No.27-37-158, Governor Peta, M.G. Road, Vijayawada - 520002. / ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ. Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in not issuing passport to the petitioner pursuant to the application dated 30-12-2024 vide File No VJ2067254756524 on the 4- ground that bail bonds are in force even after the petitioner was acquitted in the Criminal cases as illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to issue passport to the petitioner in the interest of justice lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 2nd respondent to consider the application of the petitioner dated 30-12-2024 vide File No. VJ2067254756524for issue of passport without reference to bail bonds which are in force in CC No 248 of 2023 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class Rajam Criminal Case pending disposal of the writ petition in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI CH B R P SEKHAR Counsel for the Respondents No.1 & 2 : SRI PAMARTHI KAMESWARA RAO (SC FOR CENTRAL) GOVT. The Court made the following ORDER : APHC010035422025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] THURSDAY .THE SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 2092/2025 Between: Dhana Puma Chandra Rao Atiuri ...PETITIONER AND The Union Of India and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.CH B R P SEKHAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.PAMARTHI KAMESWARA RAO SC FOR CENTRAL. GOVT. The Court made the following: 2 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 2092/2025 ORDER: 1. This Writ Petition is filed claiming the following relief; “...to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus by declaring the action of the 2'"^ respondent in not issuing passport to the petitioner pursuant to the application dated 30.12.2024 vide File NO.VJ2067254756524 on the ground that bail bonds are in force even after the petitioner was acguitted in the Criminal cases as illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the 2 respondent to issue passport to the petitioner in the interest of justice and to pass such other order or orders...” nd The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner completed his graduation. For pursuing higher studies in abroad, the petitioner applied for passport. The said application was rejected on the ground that criminal cases are pending against the petitioner. The petitioner again submitted application for issuance of passport on 30.12.2024. In reply, the 2 respondent issued a letter dated 03.01.2025 intimating that an adverse police verification report was received alleging that two criminal cases i.e., Cr.No.17/2021 on the file of Managalagiri Town Police Station and Cr.No.206 of 2023 on the file of Rajam Police Station were registered against the petitioner. In reply to the said letter, the petitioner submitted his explanation stating that no criminal cases are pending against the petitioner as on the date 2. an nd 4. i 3 of submission of the application and the charge sheet with regard to Cr.No.17 of 2021 was filed and the same was registered as C.C.No.190 of 2022 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class-cum-Additi onal Civil Judge (Jr. Division) Mangalagiri. After the trial, a judgment dated 22.07.2024 passed in the said C.C. by acquitting the petitioner herein. So also, charge sheet with regard to Cr.No.206 of 2023 was filed and the same was registered as C.C.no.248 of 2023 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajam. After the trial, a judgment dated 24.09.2024 was passed in the said C.C. by acquitting the petitioner herein. In view of the same, no cases are pending against the petitioner. The bail bonds in C.C.No.190 of 2022 expired on 22.01.2025. But the 2'^’^ respondent is not considering my application for issuance of passport. Flence, the present Writ Petition. was 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as on date no criminal cases are pending against the petitioner before the Court of law. As such. Section 6 or Section 10 of the Passports Act, 1967 will not apply to the petitioner in the present case. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the judgment rendered by this Court in Sannareddy Sudheer Kumar vs. The Union of India and others.^ 5. On the other hand the learned Standing Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 also placed written instructions, wherein it is stated that ten crimes were MANU/AP/1733/2022; W.P.No.22049 of 2022, dated 26.09.2022 4 registered against the petitioner. Out of the ten cases, the petitioner was acquitted in four cases i.e., Cr.No.17 of 2021, Cr.No.206 of 2023, Cr.No.216 of 2019 & Cr.No.52 of 2020 and five crimes were compounded against the Cr.No.219 of 2019, Cr.No.406 of 2019, Cr.No.31/2020 petitioner i.e. Cr.No.27 of 2020 & Cr.No.126 of 2020 and one case i.e., Cr.No.167 of 2021 on the file of Mangalagiri Police Station was pending. Further it is stated that the petitioner deliberately suppressed about all the crimes. Learned Standing Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 also relied upon a judgment rendered by this Court in Kadar Valli Shaik vs. Union of India, Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi and others^. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing 6. Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 2, and also perused the material placed on record. It appears that the respondent No.2 is under the premise that the petitioner herein is involved in several criminal cases and he applied for passport by suppressing the same. But, the fact remains that at present only one criminal case is pending against the petitioner and the same is at the crime stage i.e., Cr.No.167 of 2021 on the file of the Managalagiri Police Station. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the action of Respondent No.2 in not issuing the passport to the petitioner is contrary to the 7. law. ^ 2023 (3) ALD 213 (AP) 5 8. For more understanding, Section 6(2) of the Passports Act, 1967 is extracted hereunder: “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 ofIndia; (b)that the applicant may, or is likely to, engage outside India in activities prejudicial to the sovereignty and integrity ofIndia; (c)that the departure of the applicant from India may, or is likely to, he detrimental to the security ofIndia; (d)that the presence of the applicant outside India may, or is likely to, prejudice the friendly relations ofIndia with anyforeign country; (e)that the applicant has, at any time during the period offive 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 imprisonmentfor not less than two years; (fjthat proceedings in respect ofan offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant are pending before a criminal court in India; (gjthat 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 (ifthat 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. 9. The issue of renewal and issuing of passport is regulated by the Passport Act, 1967. Section 6(2) of the act, extracted above is relevant for this purpose. 6 It is further observed that holding a passport and freedom to go abroad 10. has much social value and represents the basic human right of great significance. In NarigeRavindranath vs. The Union of India and others^, the High Court for the State of Telangana held as follows: 11. 6. The Apex Court in the judgment reported in 2013 (15) SCC page 570 in Sumit Mehta v State of NCT of Delhi at para 13 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. 7. The Division Bench of the Apex Court in its judgment dated 09.04.2019 reported in LAWS 2019(2) SCC online SC 2048 in Satish Chandra Verma v Union of India (UOI) and others at para 4 observed as under: The right to travel abroad is an important basic human right for it nourishes independent and self-determining creative i! character of the individual, not only by extending his freedoms of action, but also by extending the scope of his experience. ^ W.P.No.25141 of 2023, dated 03.10.2023 7 The right also extends to private life; marriage, family and friendship which are the basic humanities which can be affected through refusal of freedom to go abroad and this freedom is a genuine human right. 12. Taking into consideration, the facts and circumstances of the case and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this Court, the present writ petition is allowed. Further the respondents are directed to consider the application of the petitioner without referring to the criminal case and issue the passport to the petitioner for a period of two(2) years subject to the petitioner furnishing order copies with regard to the crimes wherein the petitioner was acquitted and award copies with regard to the crimes wherein the petitioner was compounded, if otherwise the application is in order, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. 13. 13. This order shall not preclude the Respondents from taking such steps as are necessary to ensure the presence of the petitioners for any other 14. purposes. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed. SDI- P.VINOD KLIIVIAR ASSISTANT, registrar //TRUE COPY// FFICER SECTI To 1 The Principal Secretary Union Of India, Ministry of External Affairs, South Block, Secretariat, Raisina Hills, New Delhi. 2. The Regional Passport Officer, O/o Regional Passport Office, Ground Floor, Stalin Central, D.No.27-37-158, Governor Peta, M.G. Road, Vijayawada - 520002. 3. One CC to SRI CH B R P SEKHAR Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to SRI PAMARTHI KAMESWARA RAO (SC FOR CENTRAL. GOVT.) Advocate [OPUC] 5. THREE CD COPIES TAC w HIGH COURT DATED: 06/02/2025 ORDER WP.No.2092 of 2025 g 10 FEB 2025 ^ ^ Current Section . ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION