Reserved HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 23352 of 2026 Vikram Sharma …..Petitioner Versus Union of India and others …..Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner : Arvind Kumar Srivastava, Devendra Singh Counsel for the Respondents : A.S.G.I., C.S.C., Dhurva Kant Chaturvedi, Ravi Prakash Singh Court No. - 2 HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J. HON'BLE INDRAJEET SHUKLA, J. (Delivered by Hon’ble J.J. Munir, J.) 1. Heard Mr. Devendra Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ravi Prakash Singh, learned Central Government Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. Pradeep Singh, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 3. 2. The petitioner, Vikram Sharma, was the holder of Passport No. P4804091, the validity of the passport being from 28.09.2016 to 27.09.2026. He wants a renewal or extension of the validity of his passport, as he chooses to describe. Under the law, the petitioner's request is to be dealt with through the mechanism of re-issue of another passport. The petitioner applied for the re- issue of a passport to the Regional Passport Officer, Lucknow after completing all the required formalities. 2 WRIC No. - 23352 of 2026 3. The Regional Passport Officer addressed three letters dated 05.02.2026, 16.03.2026 and 06.05.2026 to the petitioner, requiring him to explain within 30 days why he had suppressed the pendency of Case Crime No. 364 of 2018, under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 ('SC/ ST Act', for short), Police Station Kotwali, District Mahoba and Case Crime No. 2357 of 2013, under Section 13 of the Public Gambling Act, P.S. Kotwali, District Mahoba. It is to be noted that the letter dated 05.02.2026 related to Case Crime No.364 of 2018, whereas the other two dealt with the Gambling Act matter. These cases apparently surfaced when the Regional Passport Officer invited a police verification report in order to consider the petitioner's application for the re-issue of a passport. The Regional Passport Officer, upon receipt of information regarding pendency of these criminal cases, issued notices to the petitioner, that are carried in the letters already mentioned. 4. The petitioner submitted his explanation on affidavit dated 26.02.2026. He says that the only ground, not to grant his application for re-issue of a fresh passport, is the two criminal cases, which he did not disclose, but adds that he has been acquitted in the two criminal cases. The specific stand is that the petitioner has been acquitted in Case Crime No. 364 of 2018, under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(m), 3(1)(n) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ ST Act, P.S. Kotwali, District Mahoba while in Case Crime No. 2357 of 2013, under Section 13 of the Public Gambling Act, P.S. Kotwali, District Mahoba, neither any charge- sheet has been submitted against the petitioner nor any proceedings initiated against him. The judgment relating to Case Crime No. 364 of 2018, acquitting the petitioner, has not been annexed, but as regards Case Crime No. 2357 of 2013, it is stated that no charge-sheet was filed in the case against him. 3 WRIC No. - 23352 of 2026 5. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Passport Officer, Regional Passport Office, Lucknow, where it is said that upon receipt of the petitioner's application dated 27.01.2026, it was forwarded to the Superintendent of Police, Mahoba for police verification on 27.01.2026. After verification, the Police submitted an adverse report dated 04.02.2026, mentioning that Case Crime No. 364 of 2018, under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ ST Act, P.S. Kotwali, District Mahoba was registered against him. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 05.02.2026, seeking his clarification regarding the pending cases. Upon receipt of the show cause notice, the petitioner visited the Regional Passport Office, Lucknow on 27.02.2026 and requested in writing that he was never charge-sheeted in the case under the Gambling Act and a fresh report may be called for from the police station. He submitted that a final report in relation to Crime No. 364 of 2018 has also been submitted. A copy of the final report, the Passport Officer says, is annexed as Annexure No. C.A.-04 to the counter affidavit. We have looked into the said document, which is a very illegible copy of a police report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., which the Passport Officer ought not have annexed. It is not at all clear whether that report is a charge-sheet or a final report exculpating the petitioner. 6. The Passport Officer further says that personal particulars were sent to the Superintendent of Police, Mahoba for a second time on 28.02.2026, and after verification, the police report, that was submitted, says that the status of the police verification is not clear. The Passport Officer had recorded this as an adverse report and again issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 16.03.2026, seeking his clarification regarding pending cases against him. The petitioner visited the Regional Passport Office, Lucknow on 29.03.2026 and requested in writing that the cases against him had ended and a fresh inquiry be done. He submitted 4 WRIC No. - 23352 of 2026 an order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mahoba dated 08.09.2023. After receipt of the petitioner's personal particulars, an inquiry was sent to the Superintendent of Police, Mahoba for a third time. The Police submitted an adverse report on 06.05.2026 mentioning that Crime No. 2357 of 2013, under Section 13 of the Public Gambling Act, P.S. Kotwali, District Mahoba, was lodged against the petitioner. It is on this basis that show cause notice dated 06.05.2026 was issued to the petitioner, seeking his clarification regarding pending cases against him. The petitioner's response to the said show cause is still awaited. It is said that in the circumstances of pendency of the criminal case, the petitioner is required to obtain an N.O.C. from the Trial Court, permitting him to travel abroad as per Gazette Notification No. 570(E) dated 25.08.1993 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi. He is required to produce the order of the Trial Court, permitting him to leave India and travel abroad before a passport could be issued to him. 7. Insofar as Case Crime No. 2357 of 2013, under Section 13 of the Public Gambling Act, P.S. Kotwali, District Mahoba is concerned, we notice that all the accused in the said case, despite being summoned time over again, did not appear and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mahoba, relying on some Government Order dated 02.06.2023, which at best could be reflective of the stand of the prosecution in regard to petty offences pending over a long period of time, noticed that the offence is compoundable and in the past similar matters have been compounded. He, therefore, relying on the Government Order, disposed of the case on the basis of composition. However, we notice that there is another order placed on record by the petitioner at page no. 41 of the paper-book in relation to Crime No. 2357 of 2013, under Section 13 of the Public Gambling Act, P.S. Kotwali, District Mahoba. It is dated 01.04.2026. Here, the petitioner appeared before the Court and confessed. He was 5 WRIC No. - 23352 of 2026 convicted on the basis of his confession, and looking to the petty nature of the offence, a fine of Rs.100/- was imposed. In the event of default in the payment of fine, a default sentence of one day's simple imprisonment was awarded. 8. It is slightly difficult to reconcile if on 08.09.2023, the same crime had been disposed of on the basis of compounding how the petitioner appeared before the Court on 01.04.2026 and confessed his guilt. Be that as it may, these are matters which are to be inquired into after carefully scrutinizing the record. Nevertheless, there is another case also, where the petitioner has claimed that he has been acquitted, but there is no document on record. It does appear that there are no further cases pending against the petitioner prima facie, but as remarked earlier, the Regional Passport Officer would have to carefully examine, if on date any case is pending. 9. We may, however, clarify that mere pendency of a criminal case does not disqualify the petitioner from holding a passport. Reference in this regard may be made to the guidance of the Supreme Court in Mahesh Kumar Agarwal v. Union of India and another, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2887, where it has been held: “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 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. 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. 6 WRIC No. - 23352 of 2026 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.” 10. What we, therefore, remind the Regional Passport Officer is that the pendency of a criminal case is no bar to the re-issue of a fresh passport ipso facto. The fact, if a criminal case was indeed pending on the date when the petitioner applied for the passport and suppressed the fact from the Passport Authority, is another matter, for which the Passport Authority must hold a quick and dependable inquiry supported by documentary evidence relating to the case from the Court, where the cases against the petitioner were or are pending, before forming any opinion in the matter, if indeed suppression of any kind was done by the petitioner in his application. The Regional Passport Officer will also bear in mind that every non-disclosure is suppression. In order to constitute non-disclosure of certain information in the passport application, it must be established that the petitioner or the applicant before the Regional Passport Officer was aware of the fact, which he did not disclose. If for some reason, the petitioner was under some misconception about the fact, if a case was indeed pending against him and he bona fide did not disclose it thinking that it was over, it might not amount to suppression. It would also be borne in mind by the Regional Passport Officer that the cases against the petitioner, at least one of them, about which documents have come, is petty in nature, and in the nature of things, might not have resulted in consequences, that made the petitioner aware about the p recise status of the case. About the other case, that is to say, the one other than that under the Gambling Act, the Passport Officer has to verify facts, but he must do that expeditiously. The two matters will be separately borne in mind by the Regional Passport Officer, that is to say, the fact if 7 WRIC No. - 23352 of 2026 indeed cases were pending against the petitioner on the date he made his application for the re-issue of a passport, which he deliberately did not disclose, and the other is that if he did not do so, that is to say, deliberately suppress information, but the cases are still pending, the mere pendency of a criminal case does not entitle the Passport Authorities to insist with the petitioner upon obtaining an N.O.C. looking to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Mahesh Kumar Agarwal (supra). In the later event, the Passport Authority must follow the guidance of the Supreme Court in Mahesh Kumar Agarwal alone and decide the matter. In order to enable the Regional Passport Officer to effectively pass his orders, the petitioner will appear before him on any date that the Passport Officer now requires him to do with all such documents that he might have in his possession relevant to the issue, or which the Passport Officer requires him to produce. 11. This petition is disposed of in terms of the aforesaid orders. 12. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs, Union of India, New Delhi through the learned Registrar General of Delhi High Court by the Registrar General of this Court and the Competent Authority/ Passport Officer, Regional Passport Office, Vipin Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow through the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow by the Registrar (Compliance). (Indrajeet Shukla,J.) (J.J. Munir,J.) September 21, 2026 Anoop Digitally signed by :- ANOOP KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad