Bombay High Court
ABDUL MATIN ABDUL BASIT AND ORS.versusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The Court corrected the cause title and directed issuance of a passport for a validity of four years, rejecting the request for a ten‑year passport.
Summary
The High Court was approached to correct the cause title of its earlier order and to direct the Regional Passport Authority to issue a fresh passport to Mr. Abdul Matin Abdul Basit, who had been acquitted in a POTA case but whose appeal against the acquittal remains pending. The applicant, a doctor, sought a passport with a ten‑year validity, arguing that repeated applications for shorter periods were inconvenient and that he needed to travel abroad for religious and professional purposes. The State of Maharashtra and the Union of India opposed a ten‑year passport, citing the seriousness of the pending charges. The Court noted that earlier orders had limited the passport validity to two years and, considering the pending appeal, was not inclined to grant a ten‑year term. Consequently, the Court corrected the cause title to include the applicant’s alias and directed issuance of a passport valid for four years, subject to the applicant meeting all other passport criteria.
Issues considered
- Whether the cause title of the order should be corrected to reflect the applicant’s alias.
- Whether the applicant is entitled to a passport with a ten‑year validity despite a pending criminal appeal.
- What duration of passport validity is appropriate given the pending appeal and the applicant’s circumstances.
Subjects
- passport issuance
- interim application
- criminal appeal
- acquittal
- POTA
- pending appeal
- cause title correction
- validity period
Judgment
1 of 6 501-IA-700-2026
Sagar Magar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 700 OF 2026
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 665 OF 2005
Mr. Abdul Matin Abdul Basit
@ Abdul Mateen Abdul Basit ..Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..Respondents
__________
Ms. Tahera Qureshi i/by Mr. Mubin Solkar for the Applicant.
Ms. Gauri S. Rao, APP for the Respondent-State.
__________
CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL &
RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, JJ.
DATE : 7th OCTOBER 2026
PC :
1. The matter is produced on the production board to
correct the cause title of the Order dated 30 th September 2026. By
that Order, we had directed the Passport Authority to issue a fresh
passport for a validity period of 4 years from the date of issuance
of the passport.
2. Learned counsel for the Applicant submitted that the
2 of 6 501-IA-700-2026
cause title of the Interim Application No. 700 of 2026 mentioned the
name of Applicant as follows:-
“Mr. Abdul Matin Abdul Basit @ Abdul Mateen Abdul
Basit”
3. In the Order dated 30th September 2026, the Applicant’s
alias name is not mentioned. In view of the future difficulty which
is likely to be faced by the Applicant, the cause title of the Order
dated 30th September 2026 be corrected to mention the name as
mentioned in the cause title of the Interim Application No. 700 of
2026.
4. Corrected Order be uploaded.
(RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, J.) (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
Corrected Order dated 30th September 2026 reads as under :-
3 of 6 501-IA-700-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 700 OF 2026
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 665 OF 2005
Mr. Abdul Matin Abdul Basit
@ Abdul Mateen Abdul Basit … Applicant
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra And Anr. ... Respondents
__________
Ms. Tahera Qureshi i/by Mr. Mubin Solkar for Applicants.
Ms. Gauri Rao, learned APP for Respondent No. 1-State.
Ms. Supriya Kak, SPP for Respondent No. 2-UOI.
__________
CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL &
RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, JJ.
DATE : 30 SEPTEMBER 2026
PC :
1) This is an application for directions to Respondent No. 2 –
Union of India, through the Regional Passport Authority, to issue a fresh
passport to the Applicant with validity for a period of 10 years.
2) Heard Ms. Tahera Qureshi, learned counsel for the
Applicant, Ms. Gauri Rao, learned APP for Respondent No. 1, and Ms.
Supriya Kak, learned SPP for Respondent No. 2.
4 of 6 501-IA-700-2026
3) The Applicant was the original Accused No. 1 in POTA
Special Case No. 1 of 2003 before the learned Special Judge under
POTA, 2002, Mumbai. At the conclusion of the trial, the Applicant and
his co-accused were acquitted vide Judgment and Order dated 11 th June
2005.
4) The State of Maharashtra has filed an appeal against the
acquittal vide Criminal Appeal No. 665 of 2005. The Appeal was
admitted by the Order dated 25th July 2005 and, since then, the Appeal
is pending.
5) In the past, the Applicant has preferred different
applications for similar reliefs. The first application was Criminal
Application No. 1101 of 2019 in Criminal Appeal No. 665 of 2005. The
Division Bench of this Court, vide Order dated 16th July 2019, allowed
the Application and directed the Regional Passport Authority to issue
the passport to the Applicant as per the prevalent rules. Thereafter, on
the second occasion, the Applicant preferred Criminal Interim
Application No. 2858 of 2021 in Criminal Appeal No. 665 of 2005. It
was decided vide Order dated 4th December 2021 and the Passport
Authority was directed to issue a fresh passport to the Applicant till the
end of the year 2023. Accordingly, the passport was issued and it
5 of 6 501-IA-700-2026
expired in the year 2023. Since then, the Applicant does not have a
passport.
6) Learned Counsel for the Applicant submitted that the
Applicant is a Doctor by profession and is acquitted of all the charges.
The appeal against the acquittal is admitted, but it has been pending
since the year 2005. More than 20 years have passed and there are no
other offences registered against the Applicant. He needs to travel
abroad for religious purposes and for attending conferences and,
therefore, it is essential that he has a passport. She submitted that the
prayer is made for issuance of a passport for 10 years because it is
becoming difficult and inconvenient to apply before this Court for
permission and directions to issue a passport periodically.
7) Learned APP and SPP for the Respondents submitted that
similar orders were passed in the petition in the past and they opposed
directions to issue a passport for a longer period of 10 years. They
submitted that the appeal against the acquittal is pending and the
charges were serious.
8) We have considered these submissions. Since, on the past
occasion, directions were given to the Passport Authority to issue a
passport for a period of 2 years, on this occasion also, we are inclined to
6 of 6 501-IA-700-2026
issue certain directions. However, the period of 10 years is on the longer
side and we are not inclined to issue a passport for 10 years.
Considering the passage of time, this time, we are inclined to direct
issuance of a passport for 4 years.
9) Hence the following Order :-
(i) The Passport Authority shall issue a fresh passport for a
validity period of 4 years from the date of issuance of the
passport.
(ii) The Applicant shall fulfil all other criteria for issuance of
the passport.
(ii) The Application is disposed off.
(RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, J.) (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
SAGAR
SANTOSH
MAGAR
Digitally signed by
SAGAR SANTOSH
MAGAR
Date: 2026.10.08
11:33:33 +0530
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.