[2026:RJ-JP:15733] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 8733/2024 Surendra Pal Singh Sahni S/o Late Rajendra Singh Sahni, Aged About 66 Years, R/o Rajendra Villa, Rubber Factory Road, Bhimganj Mandi, Kota Junction, Kota, ( Rajasthan). ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Suresh Kumar Sahni, Adv. Mr. Ram Mohan Sharma, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Onkar Singh Rajpurohit, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI Order 15/04/2026 ;kph@vfHk;qDr dh vksj ls ;g ;kfpdk varxZr /kkjk 528 Hkkjrh; ukxfjd lqj{kk lafgrk fopkj.k U;k;ky; eq[; U;kf;d eftLVªsV dksVk ¼ftls vkxs ^fopkj.k U;k;ky;* ls lacksf/kr fd;k tk,xk½ }kjk izdj.k la[;k 8308@2023 ljdkj cuke rstUnz iky flag mQZ fjEih o vU; esa ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 08-04-2024 ls O;fFkr gksdj izLrqr dh xbZ gS] ftlds ek/;e ls fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk ;kph@vfHk;qDr dh vksj ls ikliksVZ uohuhdj.k gsrq izLrqr izkFkZuk i= vLohdkj dj [kkfjt fd;k x;k gSA ;kph@vfHk;qDr ds fo}ku vfHkHkk"kd dk cgl ds nkSjku ;g rdZ jgk gS fd fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; us ljdkj cuke rstUnz iky flag mQZ fjEih o vU; fu;fer vkijkf/kd izdj.k la[;k 8308@2023 esa ikfjr vkns'k [2026:RJ-JP:15733] (2 of 11) [CRLMP-8733/2024] fnukad 08-04-2024 }kjk ;kph@vfHk;qDr ds fo#) iwoZ esa 23 izdj.k yafcr gksus ds vk/kkj ij ikliksVZ ds uohuhdj.k gsrq vukifRr izek.ki= tkjh fd;k tkuk mfpr ugha ekuk gSA ;kph@vfHk;qDr ij iwoZ esa tks 23 izdj.k yafcr gSa] muesa ls fdlh Hkh izdj.k esa ;kph@vfHk;qDr nks"kfl) ugha gqvk gS vkSj os leLr izdj.k orZeku esa fuLrkfjr ugha gq, gSaA ;kph@vfHk;qDr ds iq=&iq=h fons'k esa fuokl djrs gSa rFkk ;kph@vfHk;qDr vius ikliksVZ uacj ch&6021432 dk uohuhdj.k djkuk pkgrk gSA fcuk fdlh U;k;laxr vkSj mfpr vk/kkj ds ;kph@vfHk;qDr dks fons'k tkus ls jksduk mldh futh Lora=rk ds ewy vf/kdkjh dk mYya?ku gSA vr% ;kph@vfHk;qDr dh vksj ls izLrqr ;g ;kfpdk Lohdkj dj vkyksP; vkns'k fnukad 08-04-2024 vikLr dj izR;FkhZ dks 30 fnol ds Hkhrj ;kph dk ikliksVZ 10 o"kZ ds fy, uohuhd`r fd, tkus dk vkns'k fn;k tkosA ;kph@vfHk;qDr ds fo}ku vfHkHkk"kd us vius rdksZa ds leFkZu esa fuEufyf[kr fofu'p; izLrqr fd,%& 1. Sannith Reddy Mandhadi Vs. The Union of India & another; 2024 SCC OnLine TS 767 2. Balkaran Singh Versus State of Rajasthan, Through PP; S.B. Criminal Misc.(Pet.) No. 7824/2022; order dated 21.11.2022. 3. Anil Wadhwa Versus State of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor; S.B. Criminal Misc.(Pet.) No. 9110/2022; order dated 07.07.2023. 4. Nareshant Sharma Versus State of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor; S.B. Criminal Misc.(Pet.) No. 1100/2021; order dated 26.07.2021. fo}ku yksd vfHk;kstd bl rF; ls lger gSa fd ;kph@vfHk;qDr ds fo#) yafcr leLr 23 izdj.kksa esa vHkh fopkj.k lekIr ugha gqvk gS vkSj fdlh Hkh izdj.k esa mls nks"kfl) ugha fd;k x;k gSA blds [2026:RJ-JP:15733] (3 of 11) [CRLMP-8733/2024] vfrfjDr ;kph@vfHk;qDr ds ikliksVZ dk uohuhdj.k jksds tkus dk dksbZ vk/kkj ugha gSA eSaus mHk;i{kksa ds rdksZa ij euu fd;k rFkk i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;kA ;kph@vfHk;qDr ds fo#) izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ la[;k 136@2022 iqfyl Fkkuk dksrokyh] dksVk 'kgj esa /kkjk 420] 406] 467] 468] 471] 120ch Hkkjrh; naM lafgrk esa vkjksi i= izLrqr gqvk gSA ;kph@vfHk;qDr ds fo#) iwoZ esa 23 izdj.k ntZ crk, x, gSa] os Hkh izk;% blh izdj.k ds leku gh vkijkf/kd d`R; ds crk, x, gSa vkSj mDr leLr 23 izdj.kksa esa ls fdlh esa Hkh fopkj.k lekIr ugha gqvk gS rFkk fdlh Hkh izdj.k esa ;kph@vfHk;qDr dks nks"kfl) dj nafMr ugha fd;k x;k gSA bl laca/k esa ikliksVZ vf/kfu;e] 1967 dh /kkjk 6¼2½ dks ;gka mYysf[kr fd;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr gksxk%& "(2) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the passport authority shall refuse to issue a passport or travel document for visiting any foreign country under clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 5 on any one or more of the following grounds, and on no other ground, namely:— (a) that the applicant is not a citizen of India; (b) that the applicant may, or is likely to, engage outside India in activities prejudicial to the sovereignty and integrity of India; (c) that the departure of the applicant from India may, or is likely to, be detrimental to the security of India; (d) that the presence of the applicant outside India may, or is likely to, prejudice the friendly relations of India with any foreign country; [2026:RJ-JP:15733] (4 of 11) [CRLMP-8733/2024] (e) that the applicant has, at any time during the period of five years immediately preceding the date of his application, been convicted by a court in India for any offence involving moral turpitude and sentenced in respect thereof to imprisonment for not less than two years; (f) that proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant are pending before a criminal court in India; (g) that a warrant or summons for the appearance, or a warrant for the arrest, of the applicant has been issued by a court under any law for the time being in force or that an order prohibiting the departure from India of the applicant has been made by any such court; (h) that the applicant has been repatriated and has not reimbursed the expenditure incurred in connection with such repatriation; (i) that in the opinion of the Central Government the issue of a passport or travel document to the applicant will not be in the public interest." mDr ikliksVZ vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6¼2½¼f½ ds rgr dsUnz ljdkj us uksfVfQds'ku fnukad 28-06-1993 tkjh fd;k] tks fuEu izdkj gS%& "GSR 570(E)- In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of Section 22 of the Passports Act, 1967 (15 of 1967) and in supersession of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of External Affairs No. GSR 298(E) dated the 14" April 1976, the Central Government, being of the opinion that it is necessary ni public interest to do so, hereby exempts citizens of India against whom proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by them are pending before a criminal court in India and who produce orders from the court concerned [2026:RJ-JP:15733] (5 of 11) [CRLMP-8733/2024] permitting them to depart from India, from the operation of the provisions of Clause (f) of sub- section (2) of Section 6 of the said Act, subject to the following conditions, namely:- (a) the passport to be issued to every such citizen shall be issued - (i) for the period specified in order of the court referred to above, if the court specifies a period for which the passport has to be issued; or (ii) if no period either for the issue of the passport or for the travel abroad is specified in such order, the passport shall be issued for a period of one year; (iii) if such order gives permission to travel abroad for a period less than one year, but does not specify the period validity of the passport, the passport shall be issued for one year; (iv) if such order gives permission to travel abroad for a period exceeding one year, and does not specify the validity of the passport, then the passport shall be issued for the period of travel abroad specified in the order. (b) any passport issued in terms of (a)(ii) and (a)(iii) above can be further renewed for one year at a time, provided the applicant has not travelled abroad for the period sanctioned by the court; and provided further that, in the meantime, the order of the court is not cancelled or modified; (c) any passport issued in terms of (a)(i) above can be further renewed only on the basis of afresh court order specifying a further period of validity of the passport or specifying a period for travel abroad; (d) the said citizen shall given an undertaking in writing to the passport issuing authority that he shall, if required by the court [2026:RJ-JP:15733] (6 of 11) [CRLMP-8733/2024] concerned, appear before it at any time during the continuance in force of the passport so issued." Sannith Reddy Mandhadi Vs. The Union of India & Another; 2024 SCC OnLine TS 767 fofu'p; esa ekuuh; rsyaxkuk mPp U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 26-02-2024 ds iSjk la[;k 7 ls 12 dks ;gka mYysf[kr fd;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr gksxk%& "7. It is also relevant to note that the Apex Court in Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu's case (cited supra) had an occasion to examine the provisions of the Passports Act, 1967, pendency of criminal cases and held that refusal of a passport can be only in case where an applicant is convicted during the period of five (05) years immediately preceding the date of application for an offence involving moral turpitude and sentence for imprisonment for not less than two years. Section 6.2(f) relates to a situation where the applicant is facing trial in a criminal Court. The petitioner therein was convicted in a case for the offences under Sections 420 IPC and also Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, against which, an appeal was filed and the same was dismissed. The sentence was reduced to a period of one (01) year. The petitioner therein had approached the Apex Court by way of filing an appeal and the same is pending. Therefore, considering the said facts, the Apex Court held that Passport Authority cannot refuse renewal of the passport on the ground of pendency of the criminal appeal. Thus, the Apex Court directed the Passport Authority to issue the passport of the applicant without raising the objection relating to the pendency of the aforesaid criminal appeal in S.C. [2026:RJ-JP:15733] (7 of 11) [CRLMP-8733/2024] 8. The Apex Court in another judgment reported in (2013) 15 SCC 570 in Sumit Mehta v. State of NCT of Delhi at para 13 observed as under: “The law presumes an accused to be innocent till his guilt is proved. As a presumable innocent person, he is entitled to all the fundamental rights including the right to liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.” 9. The Apex Court in “Menaka Gandhi v. Union of India” (1978) 1 SCC 248, held that no person can be deprived of his right to go abroad unless there is a law enabling the State to do so and such law contains fair, reasonable and just procedure. Para 5 of the said judgment is relevant and the same is extracted below: “Thus, no person can be deprived of his right to, go abroad unless there is a law made by the State prescribing the procedure for so depriving him and the deprivation is effected strictly in accordance with such procedure. It was for this reason, in order to comply with the requirement of Article 21, that Parliament enacted the Passports Act, 1967 for regulating the right to go abroad. It is clear from the provisions of the Passports, Act, 1967 that is lays down the circumstances under which a passport may be issued or refused or cancelled or impounded and also prescribes a procedure for doing so, but the question is whether that is sufficient compliance with Article 21. Is the prescription of some sort of procedure enough or must the procedure comply with any particular requirements? Obviously, procedure cannot be arbitrary, unfair or unreasonable. This indeed was conceded by the learned Attorney General who with his usual candour frankly stated that it was not possible for him to contend that any [2026:RJ-JP:15733] (8 of 11) [CRLMP-8733/2024] procedure howsoever arbitrary, oppressive or unjust may be prescribed by the law. Therefore, such a right to travel abroad cannot be deprived except by just, fair and reasonable procedure. 10. The Division Bench of the Apex Court in its judgment dated 09.04.2019 reported in 2019 SCC OnLine SC 2048 in Satish Chandra Verma v. Union of India (UOI) observed at para 5 as under: “The right to travel abroad is an important basic human right for it nourishes independent and self-determining creative character of the individual, not only by extending his freedoms of action, but also by extending the scope of his experience. The right also extends to private life; marriage, family and friendship which are the basic humanities which can be affected through refusal of freedom to go abroad and this freedom is a genuine human right.” 11. Referring to the said principle and also the principles laid down by the Apex Court in several other judgments, considering the guidelines issued by the Union of India from time to time, the Division Bench of High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in “Noor Paul v. Union of India” 2022 SCC OnLine P&H 1176 held that a right to travel abroad cannot be deprived except by just, fair and reasonable procedure. 12. In the judgment dated 08.04.2022 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court reported in 2023 (4) ALT 406 (AP) in “Ganni Bhaskara Rao v. Union of India” at paras 4, 5 and 6, observed as under: “This Court after hearing both the learned counsel notices that Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in [2026:RJ-JP:15733] (9 of 11) [CRLMP-8733/2024] Criminal Appeal No. 1342 of 2017, was dealing with a person, who was convicted by the Court and his appeal is pending for decision in the Supreme Court. The conviction I was however stayed. In those circumstances also it was held that the passport authority cannot refuse the “renewal” of the passport. This Court also holds that merely because a person is an accused in a case it cannot be said that he cannot “hold” or possess a passport. As per our jurisprudence every person is presumed innocent unless he is proven guilty. Therefore, the mere fact that a criminal case is pending against the person is not a ground to conclude that he cannot possess or hold a passport. Even under Section 10(d) of the Passports Act, the passport can be impounded only if the holder has been convicted of an offence involving “moral turpitude” to imprisonment of not less than two years. The use of the conjunction and makes it clear that both the ingredients must be present. Every conviction is not a ground to impound the passport. If this is the situation postconviction, in the opinion of this Court, the pendency of a case/cases is not a ground to refuse, renewal or to demand the surrender of a passport. The second issue here in this case is about the applicability of Section 6(2)(e) of the Passport Act. In the opinion of this Court that section applies to issuance of a fresh passport and not for renewal of a passport. It is also clear from GSR 570(E) which is the Notification relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents and is referred to in the counter affidavit. This Notification clarifies the procedure to be followed under Section 6(2) of the Passport Act against a person whom the criminal [2026:RJ-JP:15733] (10 of 11) [CRLMP-8733/2024] cases are pending. This notification permits them to approach the Court and the Court can decide the period for which the passport is to be issued. This is clear from a reading of the Notification issued. Clause (a)(i) states if no period is prescribed by the Court the passport should be issued for one year. Clause (a)(ii) states if the order of the Court gives permission to travel abroad for less than a year but has not prescribed the validity period of the passport, then the passport should be for one year. Lastly, Clause (a)(iii) states if the order of the Court permits foreign travel for more than one year but does not specify the validity of the passport, the passport should be issued for the period of travel mentioned in the order. Such a passport can also be renewed on Court orders. Therefore, a reading of GSR 570(E) makes it very clear that to give exception or to exempt applicants from the rigour of Section 6(2)(f) of the Act, GSR 570(E) has been brought into operation. The issuance of the passport and the period of its validity; the period of travel etc., are thus under the aegis of and control of the Court.” mijksDr fof/kd izko/kkuksa o fofu'p; esa vfHkfu/kkZfjr fl)kar dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, ;g Li"V gS fd ;kph@vfHk;qDr ds fo#) yafcr izdj.kksa esa ls mls ,d Hkh izdj.k esa nks"kfl) ugha fd;k x;k gS vkSj lHkh izdj.k orZeku esa yafcr gSaA vkijkf/kd izdj.k yafcr jgus ds vk/kkj ij ikliksVZ uohuhdj.k dks jksdk tkdj O;fDr dks fons'k tkus ds vf/kdkj ls jksduk Hkkjrh; lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 21 esa of.kZr izko/kkuksa dk mYya?ku gSA ;kph@vfHk;qDr 66 o"khZ; gS vkSj mlds iq=&iq=h fons'k esa fuokl djrs gSa rFkk ;kph@vfHk;qDr muls feyus ds fy, fons'k tkuk pkgrk gSA ;kph@vfHk;qDr ds fo#) vkijkf/kd izdj.k yafcr jgus ds vk/kkj ij [2026:RJ-JP:15733] (11 of 11) [CRLMP-8733/2024] ikliksVZ vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6¼2½¼e½ dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, ikliksVZ dk uohuhdj.k djus ls ugha jksdk tk ldrk gSA ;kph@vfHk;qDr ds ikliksVZ dk uohuhdj.k djus ls jksds tkus dk vU; dksbZ vk/kkj fo}ku yksd vfHk;kstd }kjk ugha crk;k x;k gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr vkyksP; fnukad 08-04-2024 mDr fof/kd izko/kkuksa o izLrqr fofu'p;ksa esa vfHkfu/kkZfjr fl)kar dks n`f"VXkr j[krs gq, vikLr fd, tkus ;ksX; gSA mijksDr foospu ds vk/kkj ij ;kph@vfHk;qDr dh ;kfpdk varxZr /kkjk 528 Hkkjrh; ukxfjd lqj{kk lafgrk Lohdkj dh tkrh gS rFkk fopkj.k U;k;ky; eq[; U;kf;d eftLVªsV dksVk }kjk izdj.k la[;k 8308@2023 ljdkj cuke rstUnz iky flag mQZ fjEih o vU; esa ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 08-04-2024 vikLr fd;k tkrk gS vkSj vkns'k fn;k tkrk gS fd ;kph@vfHk;qDr }kjk l{ke izkf/kdkjh ds le{k ikliksVZ uohuhdj.k ds fy, uohu izkFkZuk i= izLrqr djus ij lacaf/kr vf/kdkjh ikliksVZ vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 5 esa of.kZr izko/kkuksa dh ikyuk djrs gq, fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr vkyksP; fnukad 08-04-2024 ls izHkkfor gq, fcuk izkFkZuk i= izLrqr djus dh fnukad ls 30 fnol esa fu;ekuqlkj vkns'k ikfjr dj izkFkZuk i= dk fuLrkj.k djsaA layXu yafcr izkFkZuk i=] ;fn dksbZ gksa] Hkh fuLrkfjr fd, tkrs gSaA (CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI),J MANISH SAINI /28