APHC010505642025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3459] THURSDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO: 27633/2025 Between: 1. MUVVALA VENKATA RAJ SEKHAR, S/O MUVVALA ASHA RAO, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O. 55-7-58, SANJIV GANDHI COLONY, H.B. COLONY, VISAKHAPATNAM. ...PETITIONER AND 1. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, TILAK MARK, PATIALA HOUSE, NEW DELHI. 2. REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER, REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICE. NEAR P.F. OFFICE, BESIDE RYTHU BAZAR, MARRIPALEM, VUDA LAYOUT, NAD POST, VISAKHAPATNAM - 530 009. 3. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, DISHA WOMEN POLICE STATION VISAKHAPATNAM CITY, VISAKHAPATNAM. ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the 2nd respondent herein to issue the renewed passport bearing No.C2768675 by processing petitioners passport application file No. VS1076997811724 to the petitioner and pass. IA NO: 1 OF 2025 2 JS,J W.P.No.27633/2025 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 herein to issue the renewed passport bearing No.C2768675 by processing the petitioners passport application file No. VS1076997811724 to the petitioner pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V V N NARASIMHAM Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME 2. 3 JS,J W.P.No.27633/2025 The Court made the following ORDER: Heard Sri V.V.N. Narasimham, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Ms Alekhya, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1, 2, through online, and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent No.3. 2. The petitioner holds a valid passport until 01.01.2024 and has also obtained a B1/B2 visa valid until 05.10.2024. M/s. Softpatch Solutions, USA, has employed the petitioner since 2009, and he submitted an application under the Tatkal Scheme to the 2nd respondent for the renewal of his passport. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has two elder brothers and one sister. The wife of his elder brother filed a complaint vide Crime No.150 of 2022 under Sections 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against members of the petitioner's family, and the petitioner was arrayed as accused No.6. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that upon receipt of the Section 41-A notice, the petitioner appeared before the 3rd respondent on 12.05.2022. The 3rd respondent released the petitioner on bail upon furnishing surety. The 3rd respondent has orally informed that the proceedings will be dropped against the petitioner, and therefore, the petitioner did not mention the crime in his renewal application. 5. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has submitted his explanation to the notice dated 09.10.2024. It was also brought to the notice of the 3rd respondent that the charge sheet was filed before the First Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. The petitioner has not received any summons to date. Since the petitioner is residing in the USA, he is unaware of the pendency of the case against him. Now, the respondents 4 JS,J W.P.No.27633/2025 are not processing the application on the ground that C.C.No.6466 of 2022 is pending against the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner has been working for a US company since 2009 and has filed an application for the renewal of his passport. If the respondents fail to renew the passport, the petitioner will lose his livelihood. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that mere pendency of a criminal case is not a ground to deny reissuance of a passport, and relied on the following decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court: i. In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India1, it is observed that the right to travel Abroad is a part of personal liberty and the right to possess a passport etc., can only be curtailed following law and not on the subjective satisfaction of anyone. ii. In Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D. Ramarathnam, Assistant Passport Officer, New Delhi and Others2, it is observe77d that the right to travel abroad is part of personal liberty and cannot be deprived except in accordance with the procedure established by law, as per Article 21 of the Constitution of India. iii. In Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu v. Central Bureau of Investigation3, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that mere pendency of criminal cases cannot be a ground to deny renewal of passport. 8. The Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on instructions, submits that the charge sheet vide C.C.No.6466 of 2022 was filed before the First Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, and the case was posted to 23.09.2025 for summons to the accused. The Learned Assistant Government Pleader further submits that if the passport of the 1 (1978) 1 SCC 248 2AIR 1967 SC 1836 3 2021 SCC OnLine SC 3549 5 JS,J W.P.No.27633/2025 petitioner is renewed, the petitioner may not appear before the trial court and seeks dismissal of the writ petition. 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sumit Mehta v. State of NCT of Delhi4 held as follows: “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.” 10. In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home and in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Sumit Mehta referred supra, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to approach the Court of the learned First Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam and make an application. Upon making such an application, the jurisdictional Court shall pass an appropriate order specifying the period, taking into account Rule 12 of the Rules. It is needless to say that the petitioner will appear before the learned First Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, as and when he is required. 11. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________________ JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM Dated: 09.10.2025 KAS 4 2013 (15) SCC 570 6 JS,J W.P.No.27633/2025 153 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO: 27633/2025 Dated: 09.10.2025 KAS