1 2025:CGHC:7022 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRMP No. 491 of 2025 Tarun Kumar Dewangan S/o Santram Dewangan Aged About 33 Years R/o- House No. 259, Sethi Nagar, Stadium Road, Village- Beladula, Raigarh (C.G.). Pin- 496001 Passport No.- M4884411 ... Petitioner versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House OfÏcer, Police Station- Chakradhar Nagar, District- Raigarh (C.G.) ... Respondent --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - For Petitioner : Mr. Rajat Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent : Ms. Vaishali Mahilong, Panel lawyer Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 07.02.2025 1. By way of this petition filed under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 the petitioner is challenging the order dated 31.12.2024, whereby the application filed under section 6(2) of the Passport act, 1967 seeking no objection certificate (NOC) from the competent court of law, has been rejected. 2. Brief facts of the case are such that petitioner was having a 2 valid work visa for the period from 19.08.2022 to 18.02.2023. Following the expiration of this visa, petitioner is required to renew it for future professional engagements. So he approached the office of the concerned authority at Raipur (C.G.) for its renewal. During the physical submission of his submission of his documents, the petitioner orally informed the authority about the pendency of a criminal case registered at Police Station Chakradhar Nagar, Raigarh (C.G.), under Sections 354, 377 and 34 of IPC against the petitioner as well as his father and mother by his wife. However, the mother and father of the petitioner were granted anticipatory bail vide order dated 01.02.2023 by this Court. On 11.01.2023 after detailed deliberations, this court granted interim relief in favor of the petitioner by staying further proceedings of the FIR until the next date of hearing. As of now, no charge sheet has been filed by the respondent no. 3 against the petitioner. Petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court seeking a direction to the passport authority to accept his renewal application. Vide order dated 03.12.2024 this court granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the concerned court for appropriate relief. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that refusal of not renewing the passport by the respondent authority without considering the petitioner’s compliance with statutory 3 obligations constitutes arbitrary action and failure to perform their statutory duties. The pendency of criminal case cannot be equated to guilt. The refusal to accept the petitioner’s application on such grounds infringes upon his rights without any adjudication or explicit court orders restricting his travel. Therefore, he pleads to allow the petition and quash the order dated 31.12.2024 and direct the concerned court to grant no objection certificate for renewal of passport bearing passport no. M4884411 of the petitioner, without immediate effect. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 6. On bare perusal of the documents available on record, this court finds the investigation of his case is currently pending. The petitioner has not mentioned in his application where he has to go after getting his passport renewed. If the passport is renewed, then the proceedings of the investigation pending against the petitioner will stop as the petitioner will go out of the country. The petitioner is accused of a crime of serious nature therefore, when the reason shown in the application submitted by the petitioner does not appear to be bonafide , this court does not seem appropriate to grant any no objection 4 certificate for passport renewal. However, the petitioner is at a liberty to file a revision petition before this Court. 7. With the aforesaid liberty, the present petition is disposed of. sd/- Alfiza (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge