2026:JHHC:14776 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 2486 of 2026 ------ Kamal Nayan, aged about 78 years, S/o Late Shyam Sunder Singh, Address-Paharkothi, Opp. Govt. Middle School, PO & PS-Jasidih, Deoghar, Jharkhand-814142 (Mobile No.8603199392). … … Petitioner(s) Versus 1. Union of India, through the Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs, South Block, PO South Block, PS- Parliament Street. New Delhi-110011. 2. The Regional Passport Officer, 3rd Floor, Galaxia Mall, PO- Hehal, PS-Sukhdeo Nagar, Ratu Road, Ranchi, Jharkhand 834005. 3. The State of Jharkhand, through its Superintendent of Police, Deoghar, Office of the Superintendent of Police, Deoghar, PO & PS- Deoghar, Jharkhand 814112. … … Respondent(s) ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mrs. Shilpi Sandil Gadodia, Advocate (Through VC) For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Prashant Pallav, ASGI Ms. Shreya Shukla, AC to ASGI Mr. Kunal C. Suman, AC to GP-II ------ 04/ 14th May, 2026 1. Mrs. Shilpi Sandil Gadodia, learned counsel for the petitioner appears through virtual mode. There is no complaint with regard to clarity and quality in audio or video. 2. Heard the parties. 3. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the Passport of the petitioner is not being re-issued/renewed, only on the ground that a criminal case is pending against the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Union of India submits that the petitioner has not furnished the No Objection Certificate from the concerned Court. He submits that once the No Objection Certificate is submitted by the petitioner, the Passport of the petitioner can be renewed/re-issued. 5. It is admitted that the petitioner is facing a criminal case under Sections 147, 148, 341, 323, 354, 149, 504 & 506 of the India Penal Code. The F.I.R. is dated 09.10.2015 and the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. 6. The F.I.R. has been produced before the Court. The 2026:JHHC:14776 2 entire dispute arose on the ground of taking possession over a land. All the offences are triable by the Magistrate. The allegation of offence under Section 354 of IPC is not against this petitioner as per the F.I.R. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner, duly instructed by the petitioner itself, submitted that the petitioner is regularly appearing before the Trial Court but the other co-accused are not appearing which is delaying the entire trial. He further submits that the petitioner had already applied for No Objection Certificate for grant of Passport before the concerned Court but no order as yet been passed. 8. Considering the materials on record and the FIR, I find that the allegations in the F.I.R is triable by a Magistrate. Further, the allegation under Section 354 of IPC is not against the petitioner. The petitioner is aged about nearly 78 years old. The case is pending since last 10 years. In my opinion, the offence is not of such magnitude which can be a ground to deny Passport or renewal of Passport. 9. The fact remains that, as per law, the petitioner has to obtain a “No Objection” from the Trial Court itself. Thus, I direct the petitioner to approach the Trial Court immediately. The trial Court is directed to take a decision and pass necessary order within a period of seven days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. The petitioner, thereafter, within a week, will approach the Regional Passport Officer along with the copy of the order, who will do the needful, within seven days thereafter. 10. Since the Lawyer was appointed by High Court Legal Services Committee, Ranchi, the High Court Legal Services Committee is directed to pay the remuneration of the concerned Lawyer. 11. With the aforesaid observations, this writ petition stands disposed of. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 14.05.2026 S.K.D/CP-2 Uploaded on 15.05.2026