HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 44891 of 2024 Court No. - 82 HON'BLE PADAM NARAIN MISHRA, J. 1. Heard Ms. Preeti Singh, learned Counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and Sri. S.B. Pandey, learned Senior Advocate and DSGI assisted by Sri. Varun Pandey, learned Counsel for the opposite parties no. 3 and 4. 2. The present application has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. challenging an order dated 28.05.2024, whereby the request of the application for grant of NOC for renewal of the passport and permit the applicant to travel abroad was rejected mainly on the ground that the bail order imposed the condition that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court. 3. Brief Fact of the present case is that an FIR was lodged on 04.11.2006 by the informant against the applicant and others under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 504 and 506 IPC at Police Station Kotwali, District Muzaffar Nagar. The applicant was granted anticipatory bail by this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 25.04.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 3226 of 2023 (Rashid Siddiqui vs. State of U.P. & another). During the pendency of the said case before the learned Special Judge (MP/MLA Court), Meerut, the applicant moved an application dated 20.05.2024 stating that he had applied for issuance of a passport to perform Hajj and Umrah. The Passport Office informed him that two criminal cases were reflected against him—one being Case Crime No. 557 of 2004 under Sections 3/5/8 of the Cow Slaughter Act and Sections 379, 186, 184, 189, 34 IPC, which was decided on 06.11.2015, and the other being the present case. Consequently, the Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : J.B. Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Rashid Siddiqui .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) applicant moved the application seeking issuance of NOC for obtaining the passport. 4. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant had moved Application Paper No. 15-Kha before the trial court seeking issuance of NOC for obtaining a passport in order to perform Hajj and Umrah. However, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 09/Special Judge (MP/MLA), Meerut, without properly considering the material facts and evidence available on record, rejected the said application vide order dated 28.04.2024 in an illegal and arbitrary manner, which is liable to be quashed by this Hon’ble Court. It is further submitted that the applicant has never been previously convicted and has no criminal history, except the one case disclosed in the application dated 20.05.2024. Learned counsel contends that denial of NOC not only infringes the applicant’s right to travel abroad, which forms part of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, but also violates his fundamental right to freedom of religion guaranteed under Article 25 of the Constitution. He further argued that there is no material to indicate that the trial is likely to conclude in the near future. In such circumstances, the impugned order deserves to be set aside and appropriate directions be issued for grant of the passport for the regular period of ten years, subject to such conditions as this Court may deem fit to impose, so that the constitutional rights of the applicant are not adversely affected. 5. Learned AGA argues that there is no independent right of renewal of a passport vested and is subject to the restrictions contained in Section 6(2) of the Passports Act. It is contended that pursuant to judicial directions, the strict conditions under Section 6(2) of the Passports Act were relaxed through Office Memorandums dated 25.08.1993 and 10.10.2019 issued by the Union of India. In view of these memorandums, the trial court has rightly rejected the applicant’s request and the impugned order warrants no interference. 6. In the case of Mahesh Kumar Agarwal v. Union of India: 2025 INSC 1476, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has made the following observation which is reproduced as under: “2. Liberty, in our constitutional scheme, is not a gift of the State but its first obligation. The freedom of a citizen to move, to travel, to pursue livelihood and opportunity, subject to law, is an essential part A482 No. 44891 of 2024 2 of the guarantee under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The State may, where statute so provides, regulate or restrain that freedom in the interests of justice, security or public order but such restraint must be narrowly confined to what is necessary, proportionate to the object sought to be achieved, and clearly anchored in law. When procedural safeguards are converted into rigid barriers, or temporary disabilities are allowed to harden into indefinite exclusions, the balance between the power of the State and the dignity of the individual is disturbed, and the promise of the Constitution is put at risk." 7. The purpose of including clause (f) under Section 6(2) of the Passports Act is to prevent persons facing criminal charges from going abroad in order to protect the interests of the country and society. However, this restriction is not absolute and may be relaxed in appropriate cases with the permission of the court where the criminal proceedings are pending, after considering all relevant factors. 8. A careful reading of the Passports Act along with the Notifications dated 25.08.1993 and 10.10.2019 indicates that while the competent authority may decline issuance of a passport during the pendency of criminal proceedings, there is no legal prohibition preventing the concerned court from granting a No Objection Certificate. The decision to grant or refuse such permission rests within the judicial discretion of the court and must be determined on the basis of the specific facts and circumstances of each case, including the nature of the allegations, the conduct of the accused, and the stage of the trial. Since criminal cases may at times arise out of personal rivalry or malice, it is essential for the court to examine all relevant factors and surrounding circumstances before arriving at a just conclusion regarding renewal or reissue of the passport. 9. Coming to the fact of the present case, the impugned order does not indicate that the learned trial Court examined whether issuance of NOC for issuance of passport would prejudice the trial in any manner. The trial court failed to record its satisfaction regarding the possibility of the applicant to abscond or misusing the liberty granted to him. The impugned order, therefore, suffers from non-application of judicial mind as it does not reflect satisfaction recorded by the trial court considering the facts and circumstances of the present case. It is trite law that a speaking order is the heartbeat of judicial decision- A482 No. 44891 of 2024 3 making and any order which fails to comply with this requirement is liable to set aside. Recording of reasons ensures transparency and fairness and the impugned order falls short of this settled principle. In view of the above discussion and considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, this court is of the view that there is no absolute bar for the trial court to grant permission for issuance of passport to an accused who is being tried if the circumstances so warrant. 10. The impugned order dated 28.05.2024, passed Special Judge MP/MLA Court Meerut in Session Trial No. 691 of 2023 (State vs. Rashid Siddiqui & Others) arising out Case Crime No. 2273 A of 2006 under Section 147, 148, 149, 307, 504 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Kotwali, District- Muzaffar Nagar, is hereby quashed. 11. Accordingly, the application is allowed with the following directions:- (i) Applicant shall submit his undertaking along with his affidavit to the effect that he will not leave India without prior permission of the trial court and shall appear on each dates before the trial court as and when required within three weeks from the date of this order before the trial court concerned clearly mentioning that he will not leave India during pendency of his trial without prior permission of the trial court and he shall appear on each date unless exempted by the court before the trial court. (ii) In case the aforesaid undertaking is filed by the applicant as directed above, the trial court on demand by the applicant shall issue certified copy of undertaking given by the applicant within a week to him. (iii) The applicant shall move a fresh application along with certified copy of this order and his aforesaid undertaking before the Passport Officer/authority concerned for renewal or reissue of his passport, as the case may be. (iv) In case such application is moved by the applicant, the Passport Officer/authority concerned considering the case of the applicant afresh in the light of observation made by this Court in this order as well as contents of undertaking of the applicant, shall decide the A482 No. 44891 of 2024 4 application of the applicant in accordance with law within three weeks from the date of moving application by the applicant before him. January 29, 2026 Israr A482 No. 44891 of 2024 5 (Padam Narain Mishra,J.) Digitally signed by :- ISRAR AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad