[2026:RJ-JP:21668] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 5589/2023 Saisuda Chuennok (Citizen Of Thailand), R/o 79, M-8, Bangduan, Sub-Distt. Miyong, Distt- Samut, Province Prakan, Thailand. ----Petitioner Versus Union Of India, Through Mr. Anurag Sharma, Inspector, Customs Duty Department, Jaipur International Airport, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Arvind Bhadu with Mr. Mohit Pareek For Respondent(s) : Mr. Banwari Lal Takhar JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 21/05/2026 Reportable 1. Petitioner is a Foreign National, she is resident of Thailand. 2. The protection under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the right of life and personal liberty, extends to all persons and this right is not confined to the Indian Citizens alone and it is available to the Foreign Nationals as well. The Right to Life with Dignity guaranteed under Article 21 is available to all human beings, including foreigners. 3. As per Article 21 of the Constitution of India “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law. The right to fair and speedy trial is an integral part of Article 21 of Constitution of India. Moreover, a fair procedure, in the criminal trial is an essential component of [2026:RJ-JP:21668] (2 of 20) [CRLMP-5589/2023] Article 21 of the Constitution of India and it does not differentiate between Indian Citizens and foreign Nationals. 4. Foreign Nationals, including the petitioners, who are facing trial in India are also entitled to Right to Life with Dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This right has been established as a powerful shield of protection, ensuring that Right to Life with Dignity extends beyond borders, safeguarding all human beings. 5. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration reported in 1980 (3) SCC 488 has held that even a convicted individual holds a right to dignified life, which Article 21 of the Constitution of India recognizes, as an inherent right in every human being including foreigners. Even in the case of K. S. Puttaswamy & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in 2017 (10) SCC 1, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that anything personal is part of one’s privacy and unless it is enabled by law, it cannot be invaded even if an accused person is a Foreign National. 6. The instant criminal miscellaneous petition has been preferred assailing the validity of the order dated 27.01.2023, passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Economic Offences), Jaipur Metropolitan-II, by which the application submitted by the petitioner under Section 451 Cr.P.C. for release of her passport has been rejected. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a foreign national, belonging to the Kingdom of Thailand. Counsel submits that a criminal complaint bearing No.175/2022 was registered against her along with co-accused persons for the [2026:RJ-JP:21668] (3 of 20) [CRLMP-5589/2023] offences punishable under Sections 132 and 135 of the Central Excise and Customs Act, 1962 (for short, ‘the Act of 1962’), wherein she was arrested and her passport bearing No.AB-4670024 was seized. Counsel submits that the validity of the said passport has expired on 06.01.2025. Counsel further submits that the petitioner is on bail, but she is not in a position to travel to her motherland without possession of her passport and its renewal. Hence, under such circumstances, the application under Section 451 Cr.P.C. was submitted by the petitioner before the Court below for release of her passport for the purpose of its renewal, but the said application has been rejected on a technical count that the petitioner is a foreign national and in case her passport is released and its possession is given to the petitioner, in such eventuality she may flee away and not return to India in order to face trial. Counsel submits that this cannot be a ground for not releasing the petitioner’s passport. Hence, interference of this Court is warranted. 8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent opposed the prayer and submitted that the petitioner is a habitual offender. She is involved in the smuggling of gold. Even on four prior occasions also, she has traveled to India for the purpose of smuggling gold and this fact has been admitted by her, at the time of recording of her statements under Section 108 of the Act of 1962. Counsel submits that this time the petitioner was caught red-handed, therefore, a complaint under Section 132 and 135 of the Act of 1962 has been submitted against her and her passport has also been seized. Counsel submits that the petitioner has already misused the liberty of bail when she failed to appear [2026:RJ-JP:21668] (4 of 20) [CRLMP-5589/2023] before the Court below on 07.01.2025. Hence, her bail bonds were forfeited and thereafter, the petitioner remained absconding till 14.05.2026. Counsel submits that in case the petitioner’s passport is released and handed over to her and she get the same renewed, there is reasonable apprehension that she would travel abroad or to her motherland i.e. Thailand, with minimal chances of her return to face the pending trial, here at Jaipur, India. Hence, the Court below has not committed any error in rejecting the application submitted by the petitioner under Section 451 Cr.P.C. 9. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record. 10. This fact is not in dispute that the petitioner is a Foreign National. She is a resident of Bangduan, Sub-Distt. Miyong, Distt- Samut, Province Prakan, Thailand. She is a holder of Thailand passport No.AB-4670024. She arrived from Bangkok to Jaipur on 10.07.2022 at around 10.30 PM by Air Asia Flight No.FD-130 (Seat No.25-D) at the International Airport, Jaipur. On thorough examination and search of the petitioner by the concerned officials, it was found that she was in possession of gold jewellery weighing 575.100 grams valued at Rs.33,07,773/-. Thereafter, the proceedings under the Act of 1962 were initiated against the petitioner, wherein her statements under Section 108 of the Act of 1962 were recorded and it was found that the aforesaid act of the petitioner is punishable under Sections 132 and 135 of the Act of 1962. Accordingly, she was arrested and her passport was seized by the Department of Customs and thereafter, a complaint under Sections 132 and 135 of the Act of 1962 was submitted against [2026:RJ-JP:21668] (5 of 20) [CRLMP-5589/2023] her before the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Economic Offences), Jaipur Metropolitan. 11. This fact is not in dispute that the petitioner is facing trial before the said Court for the above-stated offences. This fact is also not in dispute that her passport was issued by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Thailand on 07.01.2020 and the validity of the same expired on 06.01.2025. Under these circumstances, an application was submitted by the petitioner under Section 451 Cr.P.C. for releasing of her passport on supurdagi for the purpose of its renewal. The said application submitted by the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner is a Foreign National and she does not have any residence with permanent address in India and in case her passport is handed over to her, she may flee away and not return to India to face trial. Hence, her application was rejected. This fact is not in dispute that the petitioner is not an Indian citizen. She is a Foreign National belonging to the Kingdom of Thailand. 12. Under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, foreign nationals also have the right to life and liberty. Under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, each and every person is entitled to travel abroad. 13. A passport is a singular and indispensable document that enables an individual to cross international boundaries and seek entry into foreign territory. Under the established principles of International Law, no sovereign State permits the entry of an alien without a valid passport or equivalent travel document. Consequently, in the absence of a valid passport, a citizen is rendered as an alien in the eyes of a foreign State, having no [2026:RJ-JP:21668] (6 of 20) [CRLMP-5589/2023] lawful authority to enter or remain within its territory. Therefore, any arbitrary or unlawful denial of an individual’s passport amounts to deprivation of the citizen’s fundamental right to travel abroad under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 14. This Court opines that pendency of a criminal case cannot be a ground to deny passport facilities including its renewal, to the petitioner since her right to personal liberty not only includes her right to travel abroad but also her right to possess and hold a valid passport. 15. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Sumit Mehta v. State of NCT of Delhi reported in (2013) 15 SCC 570 in 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.” 16. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India reported in (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 [2026:RJ-JP:21668] (7 of 20) [CRLMP-5589/2023] 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 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. 17. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Satish Chandra Verma v. Union of India (UOI) reported in 2019 SCC OnLine SC 2048 observed in 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.” 18. Recently, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mahesh Kumar Agarwal vs. Union of India and Anr. while deciding SLP (Civil) No.17769/2025 on 19.12.2025 held that pendency of criminal case does not put an absolute bar on the renewal of [2026:RJ-JP:21668] (8 of 20) [CRLMP-5589/2023] passport. Considering several provisions of the Act of 1967 it has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in para 8, 9 and 19 to 27 as under: “8. From a conjoint reading of Sections 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the Passports Act, a structured scheme emerges. Section 5 is the starting point. It prescribes the manner in which an application for a passport is to be made and requires the passport authority, subject to the other provisions of the Act, to decide the application by issuing or refusing the passport through a written order. Section 6 qualifies that power and sets out, in an exhaustive manner, the grounds on which the passport authority shall refuse to issue a passport or travel document. Sub-section (1) deals with refusal of endorsements for particular countries. Subsection (2) governs refusal of issue itself and again begins with the words “subject to the other provisions of this Act”. It obliges the authority to refuse issue where any of the situations in clauses (a) to (i) are present, including the pendency of criminal proceedings before a court in India under clause (f). Section 7 then addresses the duration of a passport. It provides that a passport shall continue in force for such period as may be prescribed, but also permits the authority, for reasons to be communicated in writing to the applicant, to issue a passport for a shorter period in an appropriate case. Section 8 deals with the converse situation where a passport has already been issued for a shorter period. It permits extension of such a passport, but expressly states that the provisions of the Act shall apply to such extension as they apply to the issue of the passport, thereby linking an extension back to the same statutory conditions and limitations that govern original issue under Sections 5 and 6. [2026:RJ-JP:21668] (9 of 20) [CRLMP-5589/2023] 9. Sections 9, 10 and 22 reinforce and complete this framework. Section 9 enables the Central Government, by rules, to prescribe the conditions subject to which and the form in which a passport shall be issued or renewed. It also permits, with prior approval of the Central Government, the imposition of case-specific conditions in addition to the prescribed ones. Section 10 operates at a later stage and deals with the life of a passport after it has been issued. It empowers the passport authority, in defined situations, to require production of the passport and to impound or revoke it. One such situation, under Section 10(3)(e), is where proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the holder are pending before a criminal court in India. Section 22 then confers on the Central Government the power, where it considers it necessary or expedient in the public interest, to exempt any person or class of persons from the operation of specified provisions of the Act or the Rules, subject to conditions. It is in exercise of this power that GSR 570(E) was issued, creating a controlled exemption from the bar in Section 6(2)(f) in favour of persons facing criminal proceedings who obtain permission from the concerned court and comply with the conditions set out in that notification. 10. to 18. XX XX XX XX XX 19. Moreover, Section 6(2)(f) speaks of “proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed” and is directed at the pre-conviction stage. Once there is a conviction, the situation falls, if at all, within Section 6(2)(e), which uses a different threshold and language. The Delhi conviction, therefore, could not have been used to reinforce a bar under Section 6(2) (f). In any event, the Delhi High Court, fully conscious [2026:RJ-JP:21668] (10 of 20) [CRLMP-5589/2023] of the conviction and sentence, has itself granted no objection for renewal for ten years, while retaining its control over travel. 20. It must also be noted that denial of renewal of a passport does not operate in a vacuum. This Court has repeatedly held in a catena of judgements6 that the right to travel abroad and the right to hold a passport are facets of the right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Any restriction on that right must be fair, just and reasonable, and must bear a rational nexus with a legitimate purpose. 21. The legitimate purpose behind Section 6(2)(f) and Section 10(3)(e) is to ensure that a person facing criminal proceedings remains amenable to the jurisdiction of the criminal court. That purpose is fully served in the present case by the conditions imposed by the NIA Court, Ranchi, and the Delhi High Court, which require the appellant to seek prior permission before any foreign travel and, in the NIA case, to re- deposit the passport immediately after renewal. To add to these safeguards an indefinite denial of even a renewed passport, when both criminal courts have consciously permitted renewal, would be a disproportionate and unreasonable restriction on the appellant’s liberty. 22. It is important to keep distinct the possession of a valid passport and the act of travelling abroad. A passport is a civil document that enables its holder to seek a visa and, subject to other laws and orders, to cross international borders. Whether a person who is on bail or facing trial may actually leave the country is a matter for the criminal court, which can grant or withhold permission, impose conditions, insist on undertakings, or refuse leave altogether. In the present case, both criminal courts have done exactly that. To refuse renewal on the speculative apprehension that [2026:RJ-JP:21668] (11 of 20) [CRLMP-5589/2023] the appellant might misuse the passport is, in effect, to second-guess the criminal courts’ assessment of risk and to assume for the passport authority a supervisory role which the statute does not envisage. 23. The reliance placed by the respondents and the Calcutta High Court on the fact that the application for re-issue was made after the original passport had expired is also misplaced. The Passports Act contemplates passports that “continue in force” for a prescribed period. It does not create a separate disability for applicants whose earlier passports have lapsed. Re-issue after expiry is a routine occurrence. The only relevant question remains whether any of the statutory grounds of refusal under Section 6(2) continue to apply in the face of an exemption granted under Section 22 by way of GSR 570(E). For the reasons already discussed, we are of the clear view that they do not in the present case. 24. Finally, even on the respondents’ own reading of GSR 570(E), the consequence of an order which does not specify a longer period of validity is that the passport should be issued for a shorter duration, usually one year, and not that renewal must be refused altogether. The learned Single Judge and the Division Bench did not examine this aspect, because they proceeded on the premise that the appellant stood outside the exemption altogether. Once it is recognised that the appellant is within the exempted class, the correct question for the passport authority is the appropriate period of validity in the facts of the case, not whether any renewal is permissible at all. In the present matter, given that the Delhi High Court has expressly authorised renewal for ten years and the NIA Court has imposed stringent conditions including redeposit and prior permission for travel, we see no justification to curtail the normal period of validity. [2026:RJ-JP:21668] (12 of 20) [CRLMP-5589/2023] 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. 26. We clarify that our conclusions are confined to the legal interplay between Sections 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 22 of the Passports Act, GSR 570(E) and the OM dated 10.10.2019, on the facts of the present case. We express no opinion on the merits of the criminal proceedings pending before the NIA Court, Ranchi, or on the appeal pending before the Delhi High Court, nor do we dilute in any manner the power of those courts to vary, strengthen or relax the conditions of bail, including conditions relating to travel abroad, in accordance with law. 27. It is needless to observe that nothing in this judgment curtails the powers of the passport authority under Section 10 of the Passports Act. If any future order of a competent court, or any subsequent development, requires impounding or revocation of the appellant’s passport, it shall be open to the authority to act in accordance with Section 10 and other applicable provisions. Equally, if the appellant violates any condition imposed by the NIA Court, Ranchi, or the Delhi High Court, it will be open to those courts to take [2026:RJ-JP:21668] (13 of 20) [CRLMP-5589/2023] such steps, including modification of bail and recall of permissions, as may be warranted.” 19. In the considered opinion of this Court, registration of an FIR or pendency of any criminal case against the applicant cannot be treated as a valid ground for refusal of her prayer seeking renewal of her passport. Denial of such permission certainly amounts to violation of fundamental rights of any person guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Each and every person has a right to travel abroad, as has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Maneka Gandhi (supra). 20. The only apprehension in the mind of the Court below is that since the petitioner is a Foreign National and in case her passport is released and she is allowed to travel abroad or to her motherland i.e. Thailand, then in that case her chances of returning back to India would be bleak and the trial, pending against her, would also be hampered. 21. In the considered opinion of this Court, relevant provisions have been enacted by the Legislature to deal with such situations. Order/Clause 5 of the Immigration and Foreigners Order, 2025 enacted under the Foreigners Act, 2025, governs the grant of permission to the Foreign Nationals to depart from India. 22. Order/Clause 5 of the Immigration and Foreigners Order, 2025 is reproduced as under: “5. Power to grant permission to depart from India (1) In addition to the grounds specified in first proviso to sub-section (2) of section 3 of the Act, a person may be refused permission to depart from India on the following grounds, namely:- [2026:RJ-JP:21668] (14 of 20) [CRLMP-5589/2023] (a) if his presence is required in India by any court; (b) if he is suffering from diseases which are danger to public health or safety; (c) if his exit may adversely affect relations with a foreign State; or (d) if he cannot be allowed to depart or exit from India either under specific orders of the Central Government or by an order issued by any law enforcement authorities or other designated Government agencies as may be authorised by the Central Government. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub- paragraph (1), the Immigration Officer may prohibit the departure of a foreigner by passing an order, when he is satisfied that such departure may not be in the public interest. (3) Whenever an Immigration Officer passes an order under sub-paragraph (2), it shall report the matter forthwith to the Central Government which may cancel or modify the order. (4) The Bureau of Immigration shall maintain an updated list of persons who shall not be granted permission to depart from India.” Bare perusal of the aforesaid provision makes it explicitly clear that the discretion lies with the Immigration Officer concerned to grant permission to any foreigner to depart from India. 23. In the identical situation, the Hon’ble Apex Court has dealt with this issue in the case of Frank Vitus Vs. Narcotics Control [2026:RJ-JP:21668] (15 of 20) [CRLMP-5589/2023] Bureau & Ors. reported in (2025)3 SCC 1 in detail and it has been held in para 1 to 8 as under: “1. By judgment and order dated 08th July, 2024, two main issues concerning bail conditions were decided. Now, the issue that remains to be answered is whether it is necessary to implead a Foreign Registration Officer appointed under Rule 3 of the Registration of Foreigners Rules, 1992 (for short ‘the Rules’) in the bail application filed by a foreigner within the meaning of the Foreigners Act, 1946 (for short ‘the Act’). Under Section 2(a) of the Act, a foreigner means a person who is not a citizen of India. 2. Under Section 3 of the Act, there is a power vested in the Central Government to issue an order making provisions either generally or concerning any particular foreigner or class of foreigners of prohibiting, regulating or restricting the entry of foreigners into India or their departure therefrom or their presence or continued presence. Under clause (g) of Section 3(2), a power has been conferred on the Central Government to issue an order directing that a foreigner shall be arrested or detained or confined. 3. In the exercise of the power conferred under Section 3 of the Act, the Foreigners Order, 1948 (for short, ‘the Order’) has been issued. Clause 2(2) of the Order provides for appointing a Civil Authority by the Central Government. Clause 5 of the Order deals with the power to grant permission to depart from India. Clause 5 of the Order reads thus: “5. Power to grant permission to depart from India. (1) No foreigner shall leave India:- [2026:RJ-JP:21668] (16 of 20) [CRLMP-5589/2023] (a) otherwise than at such port or other recognised place of departure on the borders of India as a Registration Officer having jurisdiction at that port or place may appoint in this behalf, either for foreigners generally or for any specified class or description of foreigners; or (b) without the leave of the civil authority having jurisdiction at such port or place. (2) Leave shall be refused if the civil authority is satisfied that (a) the foreigner has failed to comply with the formalities of departure prescribed under the Registration of Foreigners Rules, 1939; (b) the foreigners presence is required in India to answer a criminal charge; (c) the foreigners departure will prejudice the relations of the Central Government with a foreign power; (d) the departure of the foreigner has been prohibited under an order issued by a com- petent authority. (3) (a) Notwithstanding anything contained in the above sub-paragraphs, a civil authority may prohibit the departure of a foreigner where it is satisfied that such departure would not be conducive to the public interest. [2026:RJ-JP:21668] (17 of 20) [CRLMP-5589/2023] (b) Whenever a civil authority issues an or- der under clause (a), it shall report the mat- ter forthwith to the Central Government which may cancel or modify the order in such manner as it thinks fit.” (emphasis added) Under sub-clause (2) of clause 5, leave must be refused by the Civil Authority if it is satisfied that the foreigner’s presence is required in India to answer a criminal charge. 4. Shri Vinay Navare, learned senior counsel appointed as Amicus Curiae, has suggested that considering the powers vested in Civil Authorities under the Order, it will be appropriate to direct that while considering the prayer for granting bail in case of a foreign national who is accused of serious offences, a notice should be issued to the Civil Authority so that the said authority can be heard on the prayer for grant of bail and on bail condi- tions, in the event the court is inclined to grant bail. Shri. Vikramjeet Banerjee, learned Additional Solicitor General of India has also submitted that it is always ad- visable to give notice of the bail application to the au- thorities under the Act and the Rules. 5. Under clause (b) of Section 3(2) of the Act, there is a power vested in the Central Government to issue an or- der generally or with respect to any particular foreigner or class of foreigners that they shall not depart from In- dia or shall depart subject to observance of such condi- tions on departure as may be prescribed. The Rules do not impose any such restriction on departure from In- dia. However, as noted earlier, according to clause 5(1) (b) of the Order, no foreigner shall leave India without the leave of the Civil Authority having jurisdiction. When a foreigner’s presence is required in India to answer a [2026:RJ-JP:21668] (18 of 20) [CRLMP-5589/2023] criminal charge, permission to leave India must be re- fused. Under the Order, the Civil Authority can impose restrictions on the movements of a foreigner. Therefore, once a foreigner is released on bail, he cannot leave In- dia without the permission of the Civil Authority, as pro- vided in clause 5 of the Order. Under clause 11 and other clauses of the Order, various restrictions can be imposed on a foreigner while he is in India. The said power is wholly independent of the power to grant bail. As of today, there is no order passed by the Central Government for giving effect to clause (g) of Section 3(2) of the Act. In any event, even if such an order is issued, the power to arrest or detain a foreigner under the Act is independent of the power of the criminal court to grant bail. Notwithstanding the bail granted by a criminal court, the power to arrest and detain a for- eigner can be exercised, provided the Central Govern- ment makes an order in terms of clause (g) of Section 3(2) of the Act. 6. Therefore, we do not see any propriety in issuing a direction that either the Civil Authority or the Registra- tion Officer should be made a party to a bail application filed by a foreigner or a notice of the bail application be issued to the said authorities. The reason is that the au- thorities under the Act and the Order have no locus to oppose bail application filed by a foreigner unless bail is sought where the allegation is of the offence punishable under Section 14 of the Act. The impleadment of the Civil Authority or Registration Officer in all bail applica- tions filed by foreigners may result in unnecessary delay in deciding the bail applications. 7. All that can be done is that while releasing a for- eigner on bail, the Court should direct the investigating agency or the State, as the case may be, to immedi- ately inform the concerned Registration Officer ap- [2026:RJ-JP:21668] (19 of 20) [CRLMP-5589/2023] pointed under Rule 3 of the Rules about the grant of bail so that the Registration Officer can bring the fact of the grant of bail to the notice of concerned Civil Authority. 8. In addition to what we held by judgment and order dated 08th July, 2024, we issue the following directions: (i) While granting bail to a foreigner within the meaning of the Act, the concerned court shall issue direction to the State or prosecuting agency, as the case may be, to immediately communicate the order granting bail to the concerned Registration Officer appointed under Rule 3 of the Rules who, in turn, shall communicate the order to all concerned authorities including the Civil Authorities. If such information is furnished, it will enable the authorities under the Act, the Rules and the Order to take appropriate steps in accordance with the law; and (ii) A copy of this order shall be forwarded to Registrar Generals of all the High Courts, who in turn will forward the copies of the order to all the criminal courts in the respective States.” 24. Hence, it is clear that the discretion lies with the concerned Immigration Officer for granting permission to any foreigner like the petitioner to depart from India or not. 25. Looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the order impugned passed by the Court below is liable to be quashed and set aside and the instant criminal misc. petition deserves to be allowed. 26. Hence, the instant criminal misc. petition is allowed with directions to the Court below to release the passport of the petitioner for its renewal by the authorities concerned. [2026:RJ-JP:21668] (20 of 20) [CRLMP-5589/2023] 27. A direction is issued to the counsel appearing for the Inspector, Customs Duty Department, Jaipur International Airport, Jaipur; the Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur; the Director General of Police, Police Head Quarters, Jaipur; the Commissioner of Police, Police Commissionerate, Jaipur; the Director, Department of Prosecution, Government Secretariat, Jaipur; and Mr. Rajesh Choudhary, Government Advocate-cum-Additional Advocate General to communicate this order to the Immigration Officer, in terms of the provisions contained under Sections 3 and 7 of the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025, Immigration and Foreigners Rule, 2025, and Immigration and Foreigners Order, 2025 for taking appropriate steps. 28. It is made clear that the petitioner would not travel abroad without seeking prior permission of the Court below and such permission shall be granted to the petitioner after recording of just satisfaction by the Court below. 29. Let a copy of this order be sent to all the above officials mentioned at para No.27 of the order for making necessary compliance of the present order. 30. The stay application and all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J KuD/136