ABDUL JAVED ABDUL KHALIDversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:45526


                                            *1*                 appln3570o26 passport


                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                         CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3570 OF 2026
                                         IN
                     CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.270 OF 2023


                Abdul Javed s/o Abdul Khalid.
                                                       ...Applicant
                       -VERSUS-

                The State of Maharashtra and others.
                                                       ...Respondents

                                              …
                Shri S.S. Jadhavar and Shri P.G. Tambade, Advocates for the
                applicants.
                Shri C.V. Bhadane, APP for the respondent/ State.
                Shri R.D. Sanap, Standing Counsel for respondent No.2/ UoI.
                                              …

                                   CORAM : SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.

                                   DATE : 21 September 2026

                Per Court:-

                1.            This Criminal Application has been preferred by

                applicant No.2 in Criminal Revision No.270 of 2023.


                2.            The revision is filed challenging the impugned

                judgment and order dated 03.08.2023 passed by the learned

                Additional Sessions Judge, Bhokar, in Criminal Appeal No.11 of

                2021, whereby, the said appeal is dismissed and the judgment
                              *2*               appln3570o26 passport


and order dated 31.03.2021 passed by the learned Judicial

Magistrate First Class, Bhokar, thereby convicting the accused

i.e. applicant along with another under Section 9A of the

Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act, 1976 read with the

Maharashtra Animal Preservation (Amendment) Act, 2015 and

sentencing them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months,

came to be affirmed. The said revision is filed in the year 2023

and is still pending before this Court.


3.           During the pendency of the aforesaid criminal

revision, the instant criminal application is filed by the applicant

for issuance of directions for having no objection for issuing the

passport in favour of the applicant. According to the applicant, as

stated earlier, he is convicted under Section 9A of the

Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act, 1976 and sentenced to

suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months, against which his

appeal is also dismissed. The applicant submits that he had

applied for issuance of passport to respondent No.2 Authority i.e.

the Regional Passport Authority, Regional Passport Office,

Nagpur, District Nagpur. The application was submitted to the

competent authority through online portal i.e. Passport Seva on
                              *3*               appln3570o26 passport


28.07.2026 and the applicant had provided all the information,

which was demanded and required for the issuance of passport.


4.           According to the applicant, his application for

issuance of passport was forwarded for police verification. The

police verification report came to be submitted to the passport

authority mentioning two cases registered against the applicant

i.e. FIR No.24 of 2022 registered at Old City Police Station,

Akola and FIR No.245 of 2018 registered at Bhokar Police

Station, District Nanded, for the offences punishable under

Section 5B of Wild Life Preservation Act. It is submitted that

after the receipt of the police report, the passport authority has

issued notice dated 06.08.2026 calling upon the applicant to

submit his say on the aforesaid police report and also to submit

the order of court granting permission for passport. In view of the

above, the applicant has approached to this court for issuance of

no objection for issuing the passport to the applicant.


5.           In pursuance to the offence registered at Old City

Police Station, Akola, i.e. FIR No.24 of 2022, the applicant

submits that the said offence was punishable under Sections 188

and 269 of Indian Penal Code, and which was registered during
                              *4*               appln3570o26 passport


the Covid-19 pandemic and he had come outside the house

during the restriction imposed for movement and the police had

registered the aforesaid offence. The said offence is not a serious

offence. Another FIR No.245 of 2018 registered at Bhokar Police

Station is concerned, the applicant submits that the instant

criminal revision is arising out of the same crime and he has been

convicted under the Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act, 1976

read with the Maharashtra Animal Preservation (Amendment)

Act, 2015. The said conviction order is passed in the year 2021

and the appeal is dismissed in 2023, however, the instant criminal

revision application is pending before this Court. The applicant

further submits that he is interested in attending the Haj

Pilgrimage Yatra and as such, he is requiring the passport to

observe and attend the Haj Pilgrimage. In that view of the matter,

he submits that the issuance of passport to him is very much

necessary because until and unless he gets the passport, he is

unable to reach at Haj.


6.           By making above submissions, the learned advocate

Mr. Jadhavar submits that the instant application be allowed by

giving no objection for issuing the passport to the applicant.
                              *5*                appln3570o26 passport


7.           Per contra, Mr. Sanap, the learned standing counsel

for the Union of India/ Passport Authority submits that the

information was required to be submitted by the applicant as

regards the pending criminal cases against him. Since there are

two police cases reported against him, the permission of the court

is necessary, and as such, until and unless this court passes an

appropriate order, the authority is unable to issue the passport to

the applicant.


8.           Mr. Badhane, the learned APP submits that the

applicant be put to strict conditions as regards making himself

available as and when required by this court.


9.           After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it is

found that the applicant is convicted way back in the year 2021

and now he is having intention to attend the Haj Pilgrimage Yatra

and as such, he is requiring the passport to perform those rituals.

However, the notice dated 06.08.2026 issued by respondent

No.2/ Regional Passport Office, Nagpur, discloses that the

applicant has been asked to clarify regarding issuance of passport

facilities since he has not disclosed the aforesaid offences to the

passport authority, which have been revealed by the police
                               *6*                appln3570o26 passport


verification report.


10.           Section 6 of the Passport Act, 1967 particularly sub-

sections 2(e) and 2(f) read as under:-


      “6.    Refusal of passports, travel documents, etc.—

      (2)    Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the
             passport authority shall refuse to issue a passport
             or travel document for visiting any foreign country
             under clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 5 on
             any one or more of the following grounds, and on
             no other ground, namely:—

      (e)    that the applicant has, at any time during the period
             of five years immediately preceding the date of his
             application, been convicted by a court in India for
             any offence involving moral turpitude and
             sentenced in respect thereof to imprisonment for
             not less than two years;

      (f)    that proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to
             have been committed by the applicant are pending
             before a criminal court in India;”


11.          The aforesaid provision discloses that the passport

authority shall refuse to make an endorsement for visiting any

foreign country on any one or more grounds which are

enumerated in the said section. Clause (e) specifically states that

the passport authority shall refuse the passport if the applicant

has at any time during the period of five years immediately

preceding the date of his application been convicted by the court
                             *7*               appln3570o26 passport


of India for any offence involving moral turpitude and sentenced

in respect thereof to imprisonment for not less than two years.


12.         In pursuance to the aforesaid provision, if the

conviction of the applicant is seen, he is sentenced to undergo

sentence of six months by the learned Judicial Magistrate First

Class, while delivering the judgment and order dated 31.03.2021

in RCC No.13 of 2021. The offence under which he came to be

convicted is under Section 9A of the Maharashtra Animal

Preservation Act, 1976 read with the Maharashtra Animal

Preservation (Amendment) Act, 2015. In view of this, the

applicant is not convicted for the offence punishable for the

offence of which sentence is more than two years and he is not

convicted for the offence involving the moral turpitude.


13.         As far as sub-section 2(f) is concerned, as per this

clause (f), if the proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to

have been committed by the applicant are pending before the

criminal court in India, then the authority can refuse to issue

passport to such applicant. In respect of this provision, it is

admitted fact that the instant criminal revision application is

pending before this court and the same is likely to be heard in its
                                *8*            appln3570o26 passport


due course. The applicant is having his right to travel which is

regarded as a fundamental right by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of

this country. The applicant, therefore, cannot be refused to issue

the passport in pursuance to the offences committed in pursuance

to the conviction imposed upon him, which is admittedly less

than two years of the period. However, as regards the provision

under Section 6(2)(f), the proceedings are pending before this

court, therefore, the applicant can be permitted to have passport

by imposing certain conditions upon him.


14.         Mr. Sanap, the learned standing counsel for the

passport authority also submitted that as per GSR 570(E)

notification dated 25.08.1993 issued by the Ministry of External

Affairs and the office memorandum dated 10.10.2019, where a

criminal case is pending against the applicant, such applicant is

required to produce court permission specifying the specific

period of issuance of period.


15.         In that view of the matter, the permission is granted

to the applicant to have the passport for the purpose of attending

the Haj Pilgrimage Yatra. The Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as

this court in numerous cases have granted the permission or
                              *9*               appln3570o26 passport


directed the passport authority to issue the passport in respect of

such applicants whose criminal appeals are pending before the

court. Since the proceedings are pending before this court, the

passport authority cannot refuse issuance of passport to the

applicant on the ground of pendency of the criminal revision

before this court. As per Section 6(2)(e), the refusal of a passport

can only be in case wherein the applicant is convicted during the

period of 5 years immediately preceding the date of application

for an offence involving the moral turpitude and sentence for

imprisonment for not less than two years. However, in the instant

case, there is no such hurdle. However, as per Section 6(2)(f), as

the instant criminal revision is pending in respect of the

conviction imposed upon the applicant, the necessary direction

can be issued to the passport authorities for issuing the passport

to the applicant.


16.          In the case of Mahesh Kumar Agarwal vs. Union of

India, 2025 SCC Online SC 2887, the Hon'ble Supreme Court

has observed that the person facing a criminal proceeding is not

to be treated as absolutely disentitled to a passport, and the court

has on the applicant furnishing an undertaking to appear before
                              *10*              appln3570o26 passport


the court as and when required, pass an order to issue the

passport. The applicant would be entitled to passport. The

Hon'ble Supreme Court has further observed that notification

dated GSR 570(E) does not compel the criminal court to

authorize a particular journey that, but it proceeds on a broader

premise that where the criminal court permits the applicant to

depart from India and the period of validity is anchored either in

the court’s order or in the default periods mentioned in the

notification, the embargo in section 6(2)(f) can be lifted to that

extent.


17.          This Court in the judgment of Sagar Pradip Oak vs.

State of Maharashtra, 2026 SCC OnLine Bom 4521 , in its

paragraph No.47 has laid down certain guidelines and guideline

No.(viii) states that in case of fresh passport application/

applications made for the first time/ new passport, the passport

authority shall not insist in a NOC/permission from the court and

shall follow strictly the procedure, process and scrutiny as

provided by the Passport Act. In guideline (ii) it is laid down that

on the applicant filing the required undertaking and affidavit duly

verified by the concerned criminal court, the passport authority
                                   *11*              appln3570o26 passport


      should not insist or raise for renewal of passport on the sole

      ground that the order of the court is not produced. One needs to

      keep in mind that the verified undertaking and the affidavit are

      issued under the supervision of the court.


      18.           In view of the above discussion, the applicant may

      be entitled to obtain the passport notwithstanding pendency of

      the criminal revision, subject to the Passport Act and other

      applicable requirements. But if any subsisting order of the

      criminal court restricts his foreign travel, he must obtain

      permission in accordance with that order before actually

      travelling.


      19.           Hence, this Criminal Application is allowed.

      Respondent No.2 is directed to process the application of the

      applicant for issuance of passport as per the rules and regulations

      framed under the law.


      20.           However, it is needless to mention here that in the

      event the applicant intends to travel abroad, he shall seek

      necessary permission from the concerned Court in that behalf.


kps                                   (SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.)