Mere Pendency Of Criminal Case Not Sufficient to Refuse Passport Renewal: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court recently directed the passport authorities to not reject a man's passport renewal application merely because of pendency of criminal proceedings against him, observing that mere pendency of proceedings is not sufficient to deny him the right to renew passport.

“In the facts of the case merely because the offence under Sections 406, 420, 120(b) read with 34 of IPC is pending against the applicant, the said fact by itself is not sufficient to deny the right of the applicant for renewal of the passport," the court said.

Justice Amit Borkar set aside the magistrate’s order refusing to grant permission for renewal of license of a man booked for offences of criminal breach of trust, cheating, and criminal conspiracy.

The court directed the authorities to scrutinize eligibility of the applicant as required under the provisions of the passport Act, and pass order in accordance with law on his application for renewal of passport.

A metropolitan magistrate in Vikhroli had earlier denied the permission to renew passport, holding that since investigation is not complete and one of the accused is absconding, there are chances of tampering of evidence.

The court said that the rights of persons applying for passport renewal are regulated by the Passport Act.

It noted that the applicant had been permitted to travel to USA from July 17, 2017, to August 11, 2019. Further, there is no allegation that the applicant breached the court-imposed conditions for permission for such travel.

The court said that there is no material to show that the applicant is a flight risk.

The court said that one of the conditions for his anticipatory bail is that he shall not travel abroad without the court’s permission.

“Considering said condition, apprehension expressed by the investigating agency is uncalled for, as such apprehension is taken care of by conditions No.6 imposed in prearrest bail order,” the court said.

Advocates Sonal Parab, Tanvi Sawant and Rajeev Sawant represented the applicant.

Advocates Yogesh Gandhi and DP Singh represented the passport authorities and Advocate AR Patil represented the State.

Title: Nijal Navin Shah vs The State of Maharashtra and Anr

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 38

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment