RASHID SIDDIQUIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

            APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 44891 of 2024

Rashid Siddiqui
                                                     .....Applicant(s)
                                Versus
State of U.P. and Another
                                                        .....Opposite
                                                              Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)                       :   J.B. Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)                  :   G.A.

Court No. - 82
             HON'BLE PADAM NARAIN MISHRA, J.

1. Heard Ms. Preeti Singh, learned Counsel for the applicant as well
as learned A.G.A. and Sri. S.B. Pandey, learned Senior Advocate
and DSGI assisted by Sri. Varun Pandey, learned Counsel for the
opposite parties no. 3 and 4.

2. The present application has been filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C. challenging an order dated 28.05.2024, whereby the request
of the application for grant of NOC for renewal of the passport and
permit the applicant to travel abroad was rejected mainly on the
ground that the bail order imposed the condition that the applicant
shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court.

3. Brief Fact of the present case is that an FIR was lodged on
04.11.2006 by the informant against the applicant and others under
Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 504 and 506 IPC at Police Station
Kotwali, District Muzaffar Nagar. The applicant was granted
anticipatory bail by this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 25.04.2023
passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 3226 of
2023 (Rashid Siddiqui vs. State of U.P. & another). During the
pendency of the said case before the learned Special Judge
(MP/MLA Court), Meerut, the applicant moved an application dated
20.05.2024 stating that he had applied for issuance of a passport to
perform Hajj and Umrah. The Passport Office informed him that two
criminal cases were reflected against him—one being Case Crime
No. 557 of 2004 under Sections 3/5/8 of the Cow Slaughter Act and
Sections 379, 186, 184, 189, 34 IPC, which was decided on
06.11.2015, and the other being the present case. Consequently, the
                                                     A482 No. 44891 of 2024
                              2


applicant moved the application seeking issuance of NOC for
obtaining the passport.

4. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant
had moved Application Paper No. 15-Kha before the trial court
seeking issuance of NOC for obtaining a passport in order to perform
Hajj and Umrah. However, the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Court No. 09/Special Judge (MP/MLA), Meerut, without properly
considering the material facts and evidence available on record,
rejected the said application vide order dated 28.04.2024 in an illegal
and arbitrary manner, which is liable to be quashed by this Hon’ble
Court. It is further submitted that the applicant has never been
previously convicted and has no criminal history, except the one case
disclosed in the application dated 20.05.2024. Learned counsel
contends that denial of NOC not only infringes the applicant’s right to
travel abroad, which forms part of personal liberty under Article 21 of
the Constitution of India, but also violates his fundamental right to
freedom of religion guaranteed under Article 25 of the Constitution.
He further argued that there is no material to indicate that the trial is
likely to conclude in the near future. In such circumstances, the
impugned order deserves to be set aside and appropriate directions
be issued for grant of the passport for the regular period of ten years,
subject to such conditions as this Court may deem fit to impose, so
that the constitutional rights of the applicant are not adversely
affected.

5. Learned AGA argues that there is no independent right of renewal
of a passport vested and is subject to the restrictions contained in
Section 6(2) of the Passports Act. It is contended that pursuant to
judicial directions, the strict conditions under Section 6(2) of the
Passports Act were relaxed through Office Memorandums dated
25.08.1993 and 10.10.2019 issued by the Union of India. In view of
these memorandums, the trial court has rightly rejected the
applicant’s request and the impugned order warrants no interference.

6. In the case of Mahesh Kumar Agarwal v. Union of India: 2025
INSC 1476, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has made the following
observation which is reproduced as under:

“2. Liberty, in our constitutional scheme, is not a gift of the State but
its first obligation. The freedom of a citizen to move, to travel, to
pursue livelihood and opportunity, subject to law, is an essential part
                                                       A482 No. 44891 of 2024
                               3


of the guarantee under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The
State may, where statute so provides, regulate or restrain that
freedom in the interests of justice, security or public order but such
restraint must be narrowly confined to what is necessary,
proportionate to the object sought to be achieved, and clearly
anchored in law. When procedural safeguards are converted into rigid
barriers, or temporary disabilities are allowed to harden into indefinite
exclusions, the balance between the power of the State and the
dignity of the individual is disturbed, and the promise of the
Constitution is put at risk."

7. The purpose of including clause (f) under Section 6(2) of the
Passports Act is to prevent persons facing criminal charges from
going abroad in order to protect the interests of the country and
society. However, this restriction is not absolute and may be relaxed
in appropriate cases with the permission of the court where the
criminal proceedings are pending, after considering all relevant
factors.

8. A careful reading of the Passports Act along with the Notifications
dated 25.08.1993 and 10.10.2019 indicates that while the competent
authority may decline issuance of a passport during the pendency of
criminal proceedings, there is no legal prohibition preventing the
concerned court from granting a No Objection Certificate. The
decision to grant or refuse such permission rests within the judicial
discretion of the court and must be determined on the basis of the
specific facts and circumstances of each case, including the nature of
the allegations, the conduct of the accused, and the stage of the trial.
Since criminal cases may at times arise out of personal rivalry or
malice, it is essential for the court to examine all relevant factors and
surrounding circumstances before arriving at a just conclusion
regarding renewal or reissue of the passport.

9. Coming to the fact of the present case, the impugned order does
not indicate that the learned trial Court examined whether issuance of
NOC for issuance of passport would prejudice the trial in any manner.
The trial court failed to record its satisfaction regarding the possibility
of the applicant to abscond or misusing the liberty granted to him.
The impugned order, therefore, suffers from non-application of
judicial mind as it does not reflect satisfaction recorded by the trial
court considering the facts and circumstances of the present case. It
is trite law that a speaking order is the heartbeat of judicial decision-
                                                      A482 No. 44891 of 2024
                              4


making and any order which fails to comply with this requirement is
liable to set aside. Recording of reasons ensures transparency and
fairness and the impugned order falls short of this settled principle. In
view of the above discussion and considering the facts and
circumstances of the present case, this court is of the view that there
is no absolute bar for the trial court to grant permission for issuance
of passport to an accused who is being tried if the circumstances so
warrant.

10. The impugned order dated 28.05.2024, passed Special Judge
MP/MLA Court Meerut in Session Trial No. 691 of 2023 (State vs.
Rashid Siddiqui & Others) arising out Case Crime No. 2273 A of 2006
under Section 147, 148, 149, 307, 504 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station-
Kotwali, District- Muzaffar Nagar, is hereby quashed.

11. Accordingly, the application is allowed with the following
directions:-

(i) Applicant shall submit his undertaking along with his affidavit to the
effect that he will not leave India without prior permission of the trial
court and shall appear on each dates before the trial court as and
when required within three weeks from the date of this order before
the trial court concerned clearly mentioning that he will not leave India
during pendency of his trial without prior permission of the trial court
and he shall appear on each date unless exempted by the court
before the trial court.

(ii) In case the aforesaid undertaking is filed by the applicant as
directed above, the trial court on demand by the applicant shall issue
certified copy of undertaking given by the applicant within a week to
him.

(iii) The applicant shall move a fresh application along with certified
copy of this order and his aforesaid undertaking before the Passport
Officer/authority concerned for renewal or reissue of his passport, as
the case may be.

(iv) In case such application is moved by the applicant, the Passport
Officer/authority concerned considering the case of the applicant
afresh in the light of observation made by this Court in this order as
well as contents of undertaking of the applicant, shall decide the
                                                                                       A482 No. 44891 of 2024
                                                                 5


                                    application of the applicant in accordance with law within three weeks
                                    from the date of moving application by the applicant before him.

                                    January 29, 2026
                                    Israr
                                                                              (Padam Narain Mishra,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
ISRAR AHMAD
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad