Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Bombay High Court

MADHUKAR RAGHUNATH BHOIRversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

Decided
Disposal
Allowed

Holding

The Court directed that the passport authority consider a fresh application and issue a passport to the convicted applicant for a period of five years, similar to the earlier order for a co‑accused.

Summary

Madhukar R. Bhoir, convicted under IPC sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307 and Arms Act section 25(1), appealed his conviction while a passport application remained on hold. He sought a direction from the High Court for the Regional Passport Office, Thane, to consider his passport request despite the pending appeal. The Court noted a prior decision (Narendra K. Ambwani v. Union of India) and a similar order granting a co‑accused a five‑year passport. It held that the applicant should be allowed to file a fresh passport application and that the passport should be issued for a period of five years. The Court also required the applicant, who is out on bail, to obtain prior permission before travelling abroad. The interim application was therefore disposed with the above directions.

Issues considered

  • Whether a person convicted of serious offences and with a pending criminal appeal is entitled to be issued a passport.
  • Whether the court can direct the passport authority to issue a passport for a limited period rather than the full ten‑year term.
  • Whether the applicant must file a fresh passport application or can rely on the earlier pending application.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • passport issuance
  • convicted offender
  • pending criminal appeal
  • Indian Penal Code
  • Arms Act
  • high court interim application
  • bail
  • travel abroad

Judgment

                                                                                     911-IA-5264-2024.doc



                                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

                                        CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                    INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 5264 OF 2024
                                                     IN
                                      CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 811 OF 2017

                   Madhukar Raghunath Bhoir                                … Applicant/Appellant
                               Versus
                   The State of Maharashtra and another                        … Respondents
                                                      ******
SWEETY
RAJU
BHALERAO
                   Mr. Sumit Patil, a/w        Mr.   Shivraj   D.,   i/b    Mr.   Amit   Icham       for
Digitally signed
by SWEETY
RAJU
                   Applicant/Appellant.
BHALERAO
Date:
2026.09.18
18:43:57 +0530     Ms. Sharmila S. Kaushik, APP for Respondent/State.
                   Mr. D. P. Singh, for Respondent No. 2.
                                                      ******
                                                     CORAM : MANISH PITALE &
                                                             SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ.
                                                       DATE : 18th SEPTEMBER 2026.
                   PC:


                   1.     Heard learned counsel for the Applicant (original appellant).


                   2.     By the appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and order

                   dated 25/07/2017 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Kalyan,

                   whereby the applicant has been convicted under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302

                   and 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 25(1) of the Arms Act.

                   He has been sentenced to various periods of incarceration, including life

                   imprisonment. The appeal is pending.




                    Bhalerao                                                                          1
                                                                911-IA-5264-2024.doc



3.     The present application is filed to seek appropriate directions to the

Respondent No. 2, i.e., the Regional Passport Office, Thane for considering

the application of the applicant for issuance of passport.


4.     It is submitted that the application that was filed on behalf of the

applicant was kept on hold in terms of a document at Exhibit B. Perusal of

the same shows that the application was kept on hold in the light of the

pending criminal appeal before this Court and the conviction of the applicant

by the Sessions Court.


5.     The learned counsel for the applicant submits that this Court may

consider issuing appropriate directions to Respondent No. 2 for considering

the application for issuance of passport and to issue such a passport to the

applicant. Reliance is placed on an order dated 07/08/2023 passed by a

Coordinate Division Bench of this Court in a similar application filed by a co-

accused person, who is also convicted and sentenced like the applicant

herein. It is submitted that by the said order, the application of the co-

accused person was allowed and appropriate directions were issued to the

Passport Authorities at Nashik, to issue passport to the said applicant for a

period of five years.


6.     The learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 2 submits that in

the absence of the applicant producing an order from the competent Court,


 Bhalerao                                                                        2
                                                                911-IA-5264-2024.doc


the file pertaining to his application for issuance of passport was closed on

3rd October 2025 and intimation thereof was given to the applicant. It is

submitted that even if this Court is to consider the application on the same

lines as the application of the co-accused person, the applicant herein will

have to submit a fresh application for issuance of passport.


7.     It is brought to our notice that in terms of the judgment passed by a

Division Bench of this Court in the case of Narendra K. Ambwani vs. Union of

India and others 1 and similar orders passed by this Court, either a direction

is issued for granting passport to such a convicted accused person for a

specific period of time or direction is issued for issuance of passport under

the Passport Act and Rules, meaning thereby that the passport is issued for

the full term of 10 years.


8.     We are of the opinion that since the Coordinate Division Bench of this

Court issued direction for issuing passport to the co-accused convict for a

limited period of five years, it would be appropriate to issue a similar

direction in the present application.


9.     In view of the above, the applicant is granted liberty to move a fresh

application for issuance of passport before Respondent No. 2 - Regional

Passport Office. The said application shall be considered and processed and

passport shall be issued to the applicant for a period of five years. The
1 [(2014) SCC OnLine Bom 356]

 Bhalerao                                                                        3
                                                                   911-IA-5264-2024.doc


application is disposed of on above terms.


10.      Needless to say, the applicant will have to ensure other compliances in

accordance with the Passport Act and Rules.


11.      Since the applicant has been released on bail, it is directed that if he

intends to travel abroad, he shall specifically take prior permission of this

Court.




(SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.)                            (MANISH PITALE, J.)




 Bhalerao                                                                           4


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.