Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010169122026 2026:GAU-AS:12354 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./1143/2026 SAMIN UDDIN SON OF YEASIN ALIRESIDENT OF MASHLY (BLOCK 1) P.O. BHANGA BAZAR, P.S. BADARPUR, DISTRICT SRIBHUMI, ASSAM, PIN 788701 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM 2:THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS GOVERNMENT OF INDIA NEW DELHI PIN- 11000 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A AHMED, MS. F B CHOUDHURY,MR A AHMED,MISS. P M AHMED,U U KHAN,MR. M A CHOUDHURY Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MS. B SARMA(C.G.C.)R2,DY.S.G.I. BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER Date : 27.08.2026 Heard Mr. A. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard, Mr. K. K. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Assam Page No.# 2/5 and Mr. B. Sarma, learned CGC for the respondent No.2. 2. By this application filed under Section 528, read with Section 438 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 27.05.2025, passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, (FTC), Sribhumi, by which the prayer of the petitioner, for giving N.O.C. for the purpose of obtaining the passport was rejected. 3. The case of the petitioner is that he was made an accused in the Sessions Case, being Sessions Case No. 182/2012, under Sections 120B/302 of the IPC, read with Sections 25(1-B)(a)/27 of the Arms Act, which was initiated against him and other accused persons. 4. During the pendency of the said trial, the petitioner applied for issuance of a passport. However, the same was rejected by the Passport Authority on 13.12.2023. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the Court of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Sribhumi, seeking issuance of a No Objection Certificate (NOC), so that he could reapply for his passport. However, the said application was kept in abeyance by the learned Court. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner approached this Hon’ble Gauhati High Court by filing a writ petition, being W.P.(C) No. 2097/2025. This Hon’ble Court, vide order dated 23.04.2025, directed the petitioner to file a fresh application for issuance of an NOC for the limited purpose of performing Hajj. Accordingly, the petitioner filed an application before the Court of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Sribhumi. The said Court, after hearing the objection raised by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the case was a long-pending case and that the trial had not proceeded as some of the other accused persons had absconded, rejected the said application vide order dated 27.05.2025. The Page No.# 3/5 learned Court, while rejecting the said application, also took note of the findings and observations made by this Hon’ble Court in W.P.(C) No. 2097/2025. 5. The main grounds for rejection by the learned Court were that the nature of the offence was grave and that some of the accused persons had absconded. 6. Mr. A. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the learned Court had not considered the subsequent steps that are required to be taken once the passport is issued. He submits that, after issuance of the passport, a visa is required to be issued by the appropriate authority, wherein the specific purpose of travel is stipulated. He submits that the mere issuance of a passport would not mean that the person would abscond by travelling to other countries. 7. Mr. K. K. Das, learned Addl. P.P. for the State, however, submits that the case, which was instituted in the year 2012, could not proceed due to the absence of some of the accused persons and that the case involves the killing of a person along with offences under the Arms Act. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the records. 9. Although under the Passport Act, 1967, there is a provision under Section 6 of the said Act, more particularly, under Section 6(2)(f), wherein it is provided that if any case is pending against the applicant in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by him before a criminal court in India, the passport authority shall refuse to issue the passport or travel document for visiting any foreign country. 10. However, Mr. A. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner, has placed before this Court a notification dated 10.10.2019 issued by the Government of India, whereby it has been provided that if the applicant submits a No Objection Page No.# 4/5 Certificate from a court of law in India and gives an undertaking, and all the requisite information is placed before the appropriate authority, the issuance of the passport cannot be refused. 11. Learned counsel has also placed before this Court a judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Mahesh Kumar Agarwal v. Union of India, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2887, wherein the Apex Court held that a person involved in criminal proceedings can seek renewal of his passport, but he has to submit the passport immediately before the Court. 12. In view of the aforesaid, it appears that there is no absolute bar to the issuance of a passport to a person who is facing criminal proceedings. In the impugned order dated 27.05.2025, the aspect of any bar to the issuance of a passport to a person facing criminal proceedings was neither considered nor was it made a ground for rejection of the application filed by the petitioner. The application of the petitioner was rejected only on the ground that the case was grave in nature and that the case had not proceeded for a long period. 13. It will not be out of context to mention herein that, after obtaining a passport, a person intending to travel to another country is required to seek a visa, which is again granted to a person after due enquiry. Further, in the notification dated 10.10.2019, it has been specifically provided that an applicant, by submitting a No Objection Certificate from a court of law, giving an undertaking, and furnishing complete information with regard to the pending cases, is allowed to obtain a passport and travel beyond the boundaries of the country. 14. Further, the finding of the learned Court that the case is grave in nature cannot be a consideration for rejecting the application, since it is a settled Page No.# 5/5 position of law that, unless an accused person is convicted, he is presumed to be innocent. 15. The further finding of the learned Court that the case has not proceeded because some of the other accused persons have absconded also cannot be a consideration for rejecting the application, since the petitioner has not absconded and has appeared before the Trial Court in respect of the said case. In view of the same, therefore, the learned Court of the Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Sribhumi, is directed to issue a No Objection Certificate to the petitioner for submission before the appropriate authority for the purpose of issuance of a passport to him. 16. It is further directed that, after obtaining the passport, the petitioner shall submit the same before the said Court. When he obtains his visa for performing Hajj, the passport may be returned to the petitioner. After returning from Hajj, he shall again deposit the passport before the said Court, in the event the case has not been disposed of. 17. The petitioner is also directed to submit an appropriate application before the said Court before travelling beyond the boundaries of the country. 18. As such, the order dated 27.05.2025 passed by the learned Court of the Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Sribhumi, is hereby set aside and quashed. 19. With this observation, this criminal petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant