HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 27509 of 2026 Court No. - 79 HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J. 1. Heard Sri Anand Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Kuldeep Singh Chauhan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Union of India. 2. By means of the instant application filed under Section 528 BNSS, the applicant has sought quashing of order dated 05.06.2026 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (S.D.)/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.7, Ghaziabad in Case no. 49 of 2024 (State vs. Manoranjan Singh and others), arising out of Case Crime No.6 of 2023, under Section 408, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, P.S. Link Road, District Ghaziabad whereby application preferred at the behest of applicant seeking release of his passport alongwith permission to travel abroad, was rejected. 3. Brief facts of the present case are that applicant preferred an application on dated 25.05.2026 before learned court concerned seeking release of his passport which was already deposited by him before concerned police station in pursuance of dated 06.05.2024 through which anticipatory bail was extended in favour of applicant. Apart from release of his passport, applicant was also sought permission of travel abroad for his business purpose through the application dated 25.05.2026 which was rejected by learned Additional Civil Judge (S.D.)/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate vide impugned order dated 05.06.2026 which impugned the present application. 4. While challenging the order dated 05.06.2026, learned counsel for applicant submitted that in catena of judgments, Hon'ble the Apex Court as well as this Court, it has been held that citizens of the country are entitled for the passport and mere pendency of a criminal case could not be ground to deny passport facilities to applicant since applicant's right to personal liberty Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anand Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Sanjay Dwivedi Manoranjan Kumar .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) not only included applicant's right to travel abroad, but also applicant's right to possess or hold a passport, therefore, order impugned may be set aside. 5. Sri Kuldeep Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for Union of India vehemently opposed the prayer sought through the instant application and supported the order impugned. 6. On due consideration of the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, perusal of the records and the impugned order, it is apparent that while seeking permission to travel abroad, applicant failed to disclose the nature of his business, specific purpose for which he intended to travel abroad and the period for which he proposed to remain outside the country. In the absence of such material particulars, learned court concerned cannot be said to have committed any illegality in rejecting the prayer of the applicant for permission to travel abroad. 7. In sofar as the prayer for release of the passport is concerned, the same stands on a different footing. Mere pendency of criminal proceedings cannot, by itself, be a ground for continued retention of the passport, particularly when no specific reason has been assigned for withholding the same. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 05.06.2026 is liable to be modified to the extent of the applicant's prayer for release of his passport. 8. In view thereof, order dated 05.06.2026 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (S.D.)/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.7, Ghaziabad is modified to the extent that the passport of the applicant shall be released in his favour in accordance with law. 9. Accordingly, the instant application is partly allowed. 10. However, it is made clear that applicant will be at liberty to prefer a fresh application before learned court concerned disclosing therein the nature of his business, specific purpose of his proposed foreign travel, the country or countries proposed to be visited and the period for which he intends to remain abroad. In the event such an application is filed, learned court concerned shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law and on its own merits, without being influenced by the observations made in the present order. September 8, 2026 Vivek Kr. NA528 No. 27509 of 2026 2 (Saurabh Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- VIVEK KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad