JUDGMENT : Swarupama Chaturvedi, J. 1. Heard Dr. S.B. Singh, learned Advocate holding brief of Sri Indra Bhan Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Dhurva Kant Chaturvedi, learned panel counsel for the respondent concerned. 2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed against the order impugned dated 16.01.2026 passed by M.P./M.L.A. Court/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-IVth, Saharanpur having following prayers: “i. Issue a writ, order direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order impugned dated 16.1.2026 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) passed by M.P./M.L.A. Court/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate IVth Saharanpur. ii. Issue a writ, order direction in the nature of mandamus directing the M.P./M.L.A Court/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate IVth Saharanpur to grant permission to petitioner to renew his passport bearing Passport No. N3475038 dated 7.10.2015 within stipulated period.” 3. The brief fact giving rise to the present petition is that the petitioner was holding passport no. N3475038 which was issued on 07.10.2015 and the same was valid up to 06.10.2025. During the subsistence of the said passport, the petitioner came to be implicated in Case Crime No. 127 of 2022 registered at Police Station Mirzapur, District Saharanpur. Thereafter, a show cause notice bearing no. S.C.N./323095228/23 dated 25.01.2023 was issued to the petitioner under Section 10(3)(e) of the Passports Act, 1967 requiring him to explain the alleged suppression of material information in the passport application regarding criminal proceedings pending before the Court. Subsequently, the passport of the petitioner was impounded by the order dated 27.02.2023 passed by the respondent no.3, under the provisions of Section 10(3)(e) of the Passports Act, 1967. 4. The petitioner came to know about the impounding order dated 27.02.2023 after being released from jail and thereafter approached this Court in Mahmood Ali vs. Union of India and 4 Others , Writ-C No. 42705 of 2025 , which was disposed by this Court vide its order dated 04.12.2025. Relevant part of the order is reproduced below for easy reference: “5. However, in paragraph 18' of the petition, it is disclosed that the said FIR was registered against the petitioner in the year 2022, whereas the passport was renewed on 07.10.2015 and its validity expired only on 06.10.2025. Relevant part of the order is reproduced below for easy reference: “5. However, in paragraph 18' of the petition, it is disclosed that the said FIR was registered against the petitioner in the year 2022, whereas the passport was renewed on 07.10.2015 and its validity expired only on 06.10.2025. Therefore, it is clear from the undisputed fact that the criminal case against the petitioner came to be registered during the validity of the previous passport, which was renewed in the year 2015 for which the petitioner cannot be held at fault. However, as on date, as the validity of the passport was been impounded has already expired, the petitioner shall move a fresh application in accordance with Pawan Kumar Rajbhar Vs. Union of India & 2 Ors.: Neutral Citation No.- 2024:AHC:9963-DB and Rahimuddin Vs. Union of India and another (Writ-C No.34412 of 2025) before the learned court below, to seek permission and thereafter move a fresh application for renewal of the passport. The respondent shall consider the said application, uninfluenced by the earlier order of impounding, which has been passed as that passport has already expired. With these directions, the petition stands disposed of.” 5. In compliance of the aforesaid order, the petitioner moved the application before learned magistrate, praying for the appropriate order required for his passport renewal. The learned Magistrate, however, by order dated 16.01.2026 rejected the application of the petitioner while recording that a charge sheet had already been submitted against the accused and the case file was fixed for framing of charges. The Magistrate further observed that from the order of the High Court dated 04.12.2025, it was not clear in respect of which case the direction had been issued. It was also observed that the presence of the accused is mandatory at the stage of framing of charges and therefore the application was not fit to be allowed. Consequently, the application was dismissed, and the case was fixed for framing of charges on 02.02.2026. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner could not file response to the show cause notice before impounding because he was detained in jail. It is further submitted that the proceedings of Case Crime No. 127 of 2022 have been quashed the Apex Court vide its order dated 08.08.2023. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner could not file response to the show cause notice before impounding because he was detained in jail. It is further submitted that the proceedings of Case Crime No. 127 of 2022 have been quashed the Apex Court vide its order dated 08.08.2023. Although, it was also submitted by the learned counsel that subsequently the petitioner has been made accused in many other cases. 7. He contends that learned Magistrate has failed to appreciate the order passed by this Court on 04.12.2025 in Mahmood Ali (supra) and has mechanically rejected the application of the petitioner. It is also submitted that the right to travel abroad forms part of the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and therefore the impugned order results in an unreasonable restriction upon the fundamental rights of the petitioner. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mahesh Kumar Agarwal vs. Union of India & Another, 2025 INSC 1476 and the judgment of this Court in Rahimuddin vs. Union of India & Another, 2025 SCC OnLine All 6964 8. Per contra, learned counsel representing respondents submits on the basis of instructions, that a letter dated 24.01.2023 was received from the office of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Saharanpur informing that multiple cases were registered against the petitioner and requesting the Regional Passport Office to impound his passport. It is submitted that since the petitioner did not disclose details of criminal cases in his passport application, a show cause notice dated 25.01.2023 was issued requiring him to explain the suppression of material information and to show cause why action should not be taken to impound the passport and thereafter his passport was impounded on 27.02.2023 while issuing an intimation letter requesting him to submit the passport to the office. Learned counsel further submits that as per the Ministry of External Affairs’ Gazette Notification No. GSR 570(E) dated 25.08.1993 read with Section 22 and Section 6 of the Passports Act, 1967, a citizen against whom criminal proceedings are pending cannot be granted passport facilities unless he produces an Orders or No Objection Certificate (N.O.C.) from the concerned court permitting him to depart from India. 9. 9. In view of the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and the material brought on record, the issue which arises for consideration before this Court is whether the learned Magistrate has rightly rejected the petitioner’s application seeking appropriate order to apply for renewal of his passport, particularly in the light of the directions issued by this Court on 04.12.2025 in Mahmood Ali (supra) and the legal position governing renewal of passport where criminal proceedings are pending. 10. Having considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, it appears that the learned Magistrate has rejected the application of the petitioner mainly on the ground that the order passed by this Court on 04.12.2025 in Mahmood Ali (supra) does not clearly specify the case crime number and that the case is fixed for framing of charges for which the date was already fixed. 11. To decide the above issue, it is necessary to go through the order passed by this Court on 04.12.2025 in Mahmood Ali (supra) which in our considered view, leaves no ambiguity regarding the directions issued. This Court had clearly held in above mentioned order, that the criminal case against the petitioner came to be registered during the subsistence of the passport which had been issued in the year 2015 and whose validity expired on 06.10.2025. The Court therefore directed the petitioner to move a fresh application before the concerned court seeking permission and thereafter to apply for renewal of the passport without getting influenced by the earlier order for impounding of the passport of the petitioner. 12. The impugned order itself records that a charge sheet has been submitted and that the matter is fixed for framing of charges. Thus, the learned Magistrate was evidently aware of the criminal proceedings in which the petitioner was required to appear and therefore the statement that the High Court order doesn’t give clarity on criminal case details becomes a hyper-technical reason, especially when the application mentions the case details and the copy of the High Court petition could also show those details, if the same can be directed to be filed if not filed already and the order doesn’t record the case crime number. In such circumstances, the observation that the case crime number was not clear from the High Court’s order appears to be inconsistent and cannot be a justified reason for the rejection of the petitioner’s application. 13. This court has observed in Rahimuddin vs Union Of India And Another 2025:AHC:181505-DB that: “17. We would also like here to consider legal right of a person seeking a passport to travel abroad and exercise of discretion by the authority while dealing with such application. In our considered view for arriving at a subjective satisfaction to reject or grant a passport application, there must be objective consideration of all documents placed before the authority. In our considered view a passport related application is also to be disposed of timely to enable a person to opt for other remedies available in law in the event of refusal of passport and in cases of one year extension of the validity of passport, this becomes more crucial.” The above-mentioned legal principle applies to learned Magistrate Court also while dealing with the application, which has direct impact of the exercise of petitioner’s fundamental right. 14. It is also noteworthy that the application moved by the petitioner before the Magistrate clearly indicates that the permission was sought to travel abroad and not merely for issuance or renewal of the passport as records in the order, which means the petitioner has moved the correct application as directed by this court because it is a matter of fact that such permission is a prerequisite in the facts of the matter in view of the Gazette Notification No. GSR 570(E) where criminal proceedings are pending. 15. The Court is also mindful of the legal position that the right to hold a passport and the right to travel abroad are facets of the right to personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India as decided by the Supreme Court in various cases including Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India , (1978) 1 SCC 248 , Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D. Ramarathnam, Assistant Passport Officer, Government of India, New Delhi & Ors. AIR 1967 SC 1836 . 16. We have gone through relevant provisions of the Passport Act and observed that the collective reading of Sections 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the Passports Act brings the legislative framework governing the issuance, validity and renewal of the passport. AIR 1967 SC 1836 . 16. We have gone through relevant provisions of the Passport Act and observed that the collective reading of Sections 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the Passports Act brings the legislative framework governing the issuance, validity and renewal of the passport. Section 5 provides the procedure through which an application for a passport is to be submitted and casts a corresponding obligation upon the passport authority, subject to the other provisions of the Act, to consider such application and decide whether the passport ought to be issued or refused. The power contemplated under Section 5 does not operate in isolation. Section 6 imposes substantive limitations upon that power by specifying the circumstances in which the passport authority must decline issuance of a passport or travel document. Sub-section (1) deals with refusal to make endorsements relating to travel to particular countries. Sub-section (2) concerns refusal of the passport itself and again begins with the expression “subject to the other provisions of this Act”, thereby indicating that the decision must be taken within the broader statutory framework. The provision obligates the authority to refuse issuance of passport where any of the situations enumerated in clauses (a) to (i) exist. Clause (f), of this provision deals with the situation, where criminal proceedings in respect of an alleged offence are pending against the applicant. 17. Section 7 of the Passport Act addresses the question of validity of a passport. It provides that a passport ordinarily remains in force for such duration as may be prescribed by the rules framed under the Act. At the same time, it empowers the passport authority, to issue a passport for a shorter period, provided the reasons for doing so are communicated to the applicant in writing. Section 8 deals with the converse situation where a passport has already been issued for a reduced period. In such a case, the provision permits extension of the passport. 18. The scheme is further reinforced by Sections 9, 10 and 22 of the Act. Section 9 empowers the Central Government to prescribe, by rules, the form in which passports are to be issued or renewed as well as the conditions subject to which such issuance or renewal may take place. Section 10 addresses the position after a passport has been issued. Section 9 empowers the Central Government to prescribe, by rules, the form in which passports are to be issued or renewed as well as the conditions subject to which such issuance or renewal may take place. Section 10 addresses the position after a passport has been issued. It authorizes the passport authority, in certain defined circumstances, to require the holder to produce the passport and, if necessary, to impound or revoke it. Relevant provision for the facts of this case is Section 10(3)(e), where criminal proceedings in respect of an alleged offence committed by the holder are pending before a criminal court in India but the order passed by this Court on 04.12.2025 in Mahmood Ali (supra) has made it clear that the trial court shall consider the said application, uninfluenced by the earlier order of impounding, which has been passed as that passport has already expired. 19. Another crucial provision is Section 22 of the Passport Act which completes the statutory framework by further enabling the Central Government, where it considers necessary or expedient in the public interest, to grant exemptions from the operation of any provision of the Act or the Rules in favour of any individual or class of persons, subject to such conditions as may be specified. Notification No. GSR 570(E) has been issued in exercise of this power. Through this notification, a conditional exemption has been created from the restriction contained in Section 6(2)(f) in respect of persons against whom criminal proceedings are pending, provided they obtain permission from the concerned criminal court and comply with the conditions prescribed therein. 20. The Notification has got interpreted in various judgement of the Supreme Court including in Mahesh Kumar Agarwal vs. Union of India & Another 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2887, and a plain reading of Notification No. GSR 570(E) shows that it serves two principal purposes. First, it clarifies that the pendency of criminal proceedings does not render a person absolutely disentitled to obtain a passport. Instead, the notification permits such a person to obtain a passport notwithstanding the restriction contained in Section 6(2)(f), where the criminal court concerned has applied its mind and passed an order in relation to the issuance or use of the passport and where the applicant furnishes an undertaking to appear before the court as and when required. Instead, the notification permits such a person to obtain a passport notwithstanding the restriction contained in Section 6(2)(f), where the criminal court concerned has applied its mind and passed an order in relation to the issuance or use of the passport and where the applicant furnishes an undertaking to appear before the court as and when required. Secondly, the notification regulates the operation of this exemption by linking the validity and use of the passport to the directions contained in the order passed by the criminal court. Where the court specifies the period for which the passport may be issued, the passport authority is required to issue the passport in accordance with that direction. Where the court does not prescribe any specific duration, the notification itself provides guiding parameters, including issuance for a shorter period ordinarily one year in appropriate circumstances. 21. The Supreme Court in Mahesh Kumar Agarwal (supra) has reiterated that Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act cannot be treated as an absolute bar merely because criminal proceedings are pending and that the statutory exemption mechanism provided under Section 22 of the Act read with Gazette Notification No. GSR 570(E) must be given full effect. The relevant observations of the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment read as follows: “11. The OM dated 10.10.2019 does not create a new regime. It reiterates that GSR 570(E) must be “strictly applied”, explains the procedure where criminal cases are pending and makes it clear that a “no objection certificate” or permission from the criminal court, read with the applicant's undertaking, may override an adverse police report with reasons recorded by the Passport Officer. It also contemplates situations where more than one court is dealing with the matter and indicates that the orders of all such courts are to be read together. The OM is thus an administrative restatement of the position under Section 6(2)(f), Section 22 and GSR 570(E), and cannot add to or cut down the exemption which the notification itself grants. … 25. In the light of the above discussion, we are unable to sustain the approach adopted by the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench. The OM is thus an administrative restatement of the position under Section 6(2)(f), Section 22 and GSR 570(E), and cannot add to or cut down the exemption which the notification itself grants. … 25. In the light of the above discussion, we are unable to sustain the approach adopted by the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench. Both have treated Section 6(2)(f) as an absolute bar so long as any criminal proceeding is pending, without giving full effect to the statutory exemption mechanism under Section 22 and GSR 570(E), and without adequately appreciating that the criminal courts actually dealing with the appellant's cases have consciously permitted renewal while retaining stringent control over any foreign travel. They have, in effect, converted a qualified restriction, designed to secure the presence of an accused, into a near-permanent disability to hold a valid passport, even where the criminal courts themselves do not consider such a disability necessary.” 22. We are conscious that in several jurisdictions, flexible visa regimes or visa-on-arrival facilities are available for the Indian passport holders and therefore, ensuring the presence of an accused during trial, where personal attendance is mandatory, may lead to delay in trial. This infact justifies the legal status that the trial court, which remains seized of the proceedings, is the competent authority to regulate or permit travel abroad and impose conditions necessary to secure attendance in the trail. While exercising this power, the court must act strictly in accordance with law, ensuring that the right to travel is not curtailed mechanically or arbitrarily but is balanced in a fair, reasoned, and legally compliant manner, consistent with Article 21 and the broader right to free movement. Thus the criminal law court seized with a trial or even in case only cognizance has been taken is mandatorily required to consider application for no objection to travel abroad and to pass order both for issuance of passport and permission to travel abroad in the event it considers appropriate to grant no objection. The Regional Passport Officers are required to examine and ensure that no objection is granted on both counts while issuing or reissuing a passport applied for. 23. On a comprehensive consideration of the facts, the submissions of the parties, and the relevant legal and constitutional provisions, we are of the considered view that the impugned order dated 16.01.2026 cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the petition is allowed . 23. On a comprehensive consideration of the facts, the submissions of the parties, and the relevant legal and constitutional provisions, we are of the considered view that the impugned order dated 16.01.2026 cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the petition is allowed . The impugned order is hereby quashed, and the matter is remanded back to the learned Magistrate to consider the petitioner’s application afresh in accordance with law. In the light of the observations made hereinabove and the High Court order dated 04.12.2025, the mentioning specific case crime number in High Court’s order was immaterial, as the petitioner is required to apply for permission to travel abroad in respect of all pending cases. 24. The learned Magistrate shall pass an appropriate order after due consideration of the principles laid down herein, ensuring that the right to travel is not curtailed mechanically or arbitrarily, but is balanced in a fair, reasoned, and legally compliant manner with the necessity of securing attendance at trial. No order as to costs.