[2026:RJ-JP:26977] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 4313/2026 URN: CRLMP / 9819U / 2026 Karim Khan Son Of Kamar Khan, Aged About 71 Years, Resident Of Khalluka, Po-Bhonri, Tehsil Pahari, District Deeg 321204, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p. 2. The Regional Passport Officer, Address Regional Passport Office, J-14, Jhalana Institutional Area, Jhalana Doongri, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mohd. Wasim Khan, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rishiraj Singh, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 15/07/2026 1. By way of this Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 528 of BNSS, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 02.06.2026 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kaman, District Deeg (Raj.) in Sessions Case No.03/2012, whereby the application preferred by the petitioner seeking permission/NOC to travel abroad for performing Hajj pilgrimage and for issuance of passport came to be rejected. 2. An FIR No.324/2011 dated 30.12.2011 was registered at Police Station Pahari, District Bharatpur against the petitioner for offence under Sections 147, 149, 323, 341, 336, 451 and 307 of IPC and after completion of investigation, a charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioner and the trial is still pending. The petitioner moved an application before the learned trial Court [2026:RJ-JP:26977] (2 of 5) [CRLMP-4313/2026] seeking permission to travel abroad for performing Hajj pilgrimage and for issuance of passport, which came to be dismissed by the learned trial Court, vide order dated 02.06.2026, primarily on the ground that the allegations against the petitioner are of a serious nature and permitting him to travel abroad may result in delay in conclusion of the trial. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned trial Court has failed to consider the relevant facts and circumstances while rejecting the application. It is submitted that the petitioner is a 71-year-old senior citizen and intends to travel abroad only for the limited purpose of performing Hajj pilgrimage. Counsel further submits that the criminal case against the petitioner is pending since 2012 and the proceedings of trial are yet to be concluded. He further submits that mere pendency of criminal proceedings does not automatically disentitle an accused from obtaining a passport or seeking permission to travel abroad. He further argues that the right to travel abroad is an integral facet of the right to personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and pendency of criminal proceedings, by itself, cannot operate as an absolute embargo upon grant of such permission. Besides this, he contends that the petitioner does not have any criminal record and he is ready to furnish bank guarantee and fulfill other conditions, as imposed upon him, therefore, it is prayed that the impugned order deserves to be set aside and appropriate directions be issued for grant of permission to travel abroad and for issuance of passport with a validity of minimum three years. [2026:RJ-JP:26977] (3 of 5) [CRLMP-4313/2026] 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner's counsel. Counsel submits that the petitioner is facing trial for serious offences and the learned trial Court has rightly declined the prayer considering the pendency of criminal proceedings. He submits that in case, the petitioner is given permission to leave India, there is every possibility that he would not return to India to face trial and he may abscond, therefore, it was prayed that the instant petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Admittedly, the FIR was registered in the year 2011 and till date, trial has not been concluded. This Court is of the considered opinion that pendency of investigation/trial cannot be a sole ground to reject the prayer of the petitioner to leave India. The prayer made by the petitioner to go abroad is a fundamental right and which cannot be curtailed only on this ground. Freedom of movement is one of the six freedoms under Article 19(1) of the Constitution of India. The freedom of movement has two dimensions, viz, internal (right to move inside the country) and external (right to move out of the country and right to come back to the country). Article 19 protects only the first dimension. The second dimension is dealt with by Article 21 (Right to life and personal liberty). In the case of Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India, AIR 978 SC 597, the Hon'ble Supreme Court took the wider interpretation of Article 21. The Court held that "Right to life [2026:RJ-JP:26977] (4 of 5) [CRLMP-4313/2026] and liberty" as embodied under Article 21 is not merely confined to animal existence or survival but it includes within its ambit the right to live with human dignity and all those aspects of life which go to make a man's life meaningful, complete and worth-living. It was also ruled that expression "personal liberty" in Article 21 of the Constitution is of the widest amplitude and it covers a variety of rights that go to constitute the personal liberty of a person. The case of Maneka Gandhi (supra) indeed had profound implications for the interpretation of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees right to life and personal liberty. This landmark case expanded the understanding of Article 21 and reaffirmed the fundamental importance of individual rights and due process in the Indian legal system. The Court ruled that the right to personal liberty under Article 21 encompasses the right to travel freely within the country and abroad. This decision recognised that the Government cannot arbitrarily restrain an individual's freedom to travel beyond national borders. 7. Having considered the aforesaid and keeping in mind the balance between the right of the petitioner to travel abroad and also right of the prosecution to duly prosecute the petitioner, in order to meet the ends of justice, this Court is of the view that the learned Trial Court was not justified in rejecting the application of the petitioner. 8. Accordingly, the instant Criminal Misc. Petition is allowed and the order dated 02.06.2026 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kaman, District Deeg is hereby set [2026:RJ-JP:26977] (5 of 5) [CRLMP-4313/2026] aside. The petitioner Karim Khan is hereby given permission to travel abroad to perform Hajj pilgrimage subject to the condition that he shall execute a personal bond of Rs.1,50,000/- with a bank guarantee of the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court concerned, which in the eventuality of failure of the petitioner in returning India, would be forfeited. The petitioner shall inform the trial Court of the dates of departure from India and return to India. It is further clarified that the pending criminal case against the petitioner shall not constitute an impediment to the issuance of a passport to the petitioner. The passport may be issued by the concerned Authority to the applicant with a validity of three years and immediately upon returning to India, the applicant shall deposit/surrender the passport before the trial Court. 9. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J 272/Manoj Solanki