VIKRAM SHARMAversusUNION OF INDIA AND 2 OTHERS

                                                               Reserved

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                      WRIT - C No. - 23352 of 2026

Vikram Sharma
                                                           …..Petitioner

                               Versus

Union of India and others
                                                       …..Respondents


Counsel for the Petitioner       : Arvind Kumar Srivastava,
                                   Devendra Singh
Counsel for the Respondents      : A.S.G.I., C.S.C., Dhurva Kant
                                   Chaturvedi, Ravi Prakash Singh


Court No. - 2

            HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.
            HON'BLE INDRAJEET SHUKLA, J.

                   (Delivered by Hon’ble J.J. Munir, J.)
1.    Heard Mr. Devendra Singh, learned Counsel for the
petitioner, Mr. Ravi Prakash Singh, learned Central Government
Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Mr.
Pradeep Singh, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of
respondent no. 3.

2.    The petitioner, Vikram Sharma, was the holder of Passport
No. P4804091, the validity of the passport being from 28.09.2016
to 27.09.2026. He wants a renewal or extension of the validity of
his passport, as he chooses to describe. Under the law, the
petitioner's request is to be dealt with through the mechanism of
re-issue of another passport. The petitioner applied for the re-
issue of a passport to the Regional Passport Officer, Lucknow
after completing all the required formalities.
                                  2
                                              WRIC No. - 23352 of 2026

3.    The Regional Passport Officer addressed three letters dated
05.02.2026, 16.03.2026 and 06.05.2026 to the petitioner,
requiring him to explain within 30 days why he had suppressed
the pendency of Case Crime No. 364 of 2018, under Sections
323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 ('SC/ ST Act', for short), Police Station
Kotwali, District Mahoba and Case Crime No. 2357 of 2013, under
Section 13 of the Public Gambling Act, P.S. Kotwali, District
Mahoba. It is to be noted that the letter dated 05.02.2026 related
to Case Crime No.364 of 2018, whereas the other two dealt with
the Gambling Act matter. These cases apparently surfaced when
the Regional Passport Officer invited a police verification report in
order to consider the petitioner's application for the re-issue of a
passport. The Regional Passport Officer, upon receipt of
information regarding pendency of these criminal cases, issued
notices to the petitioner, that are carried in the letters already
mentioned.

4.    The petitioner submitted his explanation on affidavit dated
26.02.2026. He says that the only ground, not to grant his
application for re-issue of a fresh passport, is the two criminal
cases, which he did not disclose, but adds that he has been
acquitted in the two criminal cases. The specific stand is that the
petitioner has been acquitted in Case Crime No. 364 of 2018,
under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(m), 3(1)(n)
and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ ST Act, P.S. Kotwali, District Mahoba while
in Case Crime No. 2357 of 2013, under Section 13 of the Public
Gambling Act, P.S. Kotwali, District Mahoba, neither any charge-
sheet has been submitted against the petitioner nor any
proceedings initiated against him. The judgment relating to Case
Crime No. 364 of 2018, acquitting the petitioner, has not been
annexed, but as regards Case Crime No. 2357 of 2013, it is
stated that no charge-sheet was filed in the case against him.
                                  3
                                              WRIC No. - 23352 of 2026

5.    A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Passport
Officer, Regional Passport Office, Lucknow, where it is said that
upon receipt of the petitioner's application dated 27.01.2026, it
was forwarded to the Superintendent of Police, Mahoba for police
verification on 27.01.2026. After verification, the Police submitted
an adverse report dated 04.02.2026, mentioning that Case Crime
No. 364 of 2018, under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section
3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ ST Act, P.S. Kotwali,
District Mahoba was registered against him. A show cause notice
was issued to the petitioner on 05.02.2026, seeking his
clarification regarding the pending cases. Upon receipt of the
show cause notice, the petitioner visited the Regional Passport
Office, Lucknow on 27.02.2026 and requested in writing that he
was never charge-sheeted in the case under the Gambling Act
and a fresh report may be called for from the police station. He
submitted that a final report in relation to Crime No. 364 of 2018
has also been submitted. A copy of the final report, the Passport
Officer says, is annexed as Annexure No. C.A.-04 to the counter
affidavit. We have looked into the said document, which is a very
illegible copy of a police report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., which
the Passport Officer ought not have annexed. It is not at all clear
whether that report is a charge-sheet or a final report exculpating
the petitioner.

6.    The Passport Officer further says that personal particulars
were sent to the Superintendent of Police, Mahoba for a second
time on 28.02.2026, and after verification, the police report, that
was submitted, says that the status of the police verification is not
clear. The Passport Officer had recorded this as an adverse report
and again issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on
16.03.2026, seeking his clarification regarding pending cases
against him. The petitioner visited the Regional Passport Office,
Lucknow on 29.03.2026 and requested in writing that the cases
against him had ended and a fresh inquiry be done. He submitted
                                 4
                                              WRIC No. - 23352 of 2026

an order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mahoba dated
08.09.2023. After receipt of the petitioner's personal particulars,
an inquiry was sent to the Superintendent of Police, Mahoba for a
third time. The Police submitted an adverse report on 06.05.2026
mentioning that Crime No. 2357 of 2013, under Section 13 of the
Public Gambling Act, P.S. Kotwali, District Mahoba, was lodged
against the petitioner. It is on this basis that show cause notice
dated 06.05.2026 was issued to the petitioner, seeking his
clarification regarding pending cases against him. The petitioner's
response to the said show cause is still awaited. It is said that in
the circumstances of pendency of the criminal case, the petitioner
is required to obtain an N.O.C. from the Trial Court, permitting him
to travel abroad as per Gazette Notification No. 570(E) dated
25.08.1993 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of
External Affairs, New Delhi. He is required to produce the order of
the Trial Court, permitting him to leave India and travel abroad
before a passport could be issued to him.

7.   Insofar as Case Crime No. 2357 of 2013, under Section 13
of the Public Gambling Act, P.S. Kotwali, District Mahoba is
concerned, we notice that all the accused in the said case,
despite being summoned time over again, did not appear and the
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mahoba, relying on some
Government Order dated 02.06.2023, which at best could be
reflective of the stand of the prosecution in regard to petty
offences pending over a long period of time, noticed that the
offence is compoundable and in the past similar matters have
been compounded. He, therefore, relying on the Government
Order, disposed of the case on the basis of composition.
However, we notice that there is another order placed on record
by the petitioner at page no. 41 of the paper-book in relation to
Crime No. 2357 of 2013, under Section 13 of the Public Gambling
Act, P.S. Kotwali, District Mahoba. It is dated 01.04.2026. Here,
the petitioner appeared before the Court and confessed. He was
                                            5
                                                              WRIC No. - 23352 of 2026

convicted on the basis of his confession, and looking to the petty
nature of the offence, a fine of Rs.100/- was imposed. In the event
of default in the payment of fine, a default sentence of one day's
simple imprisonment was awarded.

8.   It is slightly difficult to reconcile if on 08.09.2023, the same
crime had been disposed of on the basis of compounding how the
petitioner appeared before the Court on 01.04.2026 and
confessed his guilt. Be that as it may, these are matters which are
to be inquired into after carefully scrutinizing the record.
Nevertheless, there is another case also, where the petitioner has
claimed that he has been acquitted, but there is no document on
record. It does appear that there are no further cases pending
against the petitioner prima facie, but as remarked earlier, the
Regional Passport Officer would have to carefully examine, if on
date any case is pending.

9.   We may, however, clarify that mere pendency of a criminal
case does not disqualify the petitioner from holding a passport.
Reference in this regard may be made to the guidance of the
Supreme Court in Mahesh Kumar Agarwal v. Union of India and
another, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2887, where it has been held:

       “22. It is important to keep distinct the possession of a valid passport and the act of
       travelling abroad. A passport is a civil document that enables its holder to seek a
       visa and, subject to other laws and orders, to cross international borders. Whether a
       person who is on bail or facing trial may actually leave the country is a matter for
       the criminal court, which can grant or withhold permission, impose conditions,
       insist on undertakings, or refuse leave altogether. In the present case, both criminal
       courts have done exactly that. To refuse renewal on the speculative apprehension
       that the appellant might misuse the passport is, in effect, to second-guess the
       criminal courts' assessment of risk and to assume for the passport authority a
       supervisory role which the statute does not envisage.

       24. Finally, even on the respondents' own reading of GSR 570(E), the consequence
       of an order which does not specify a longer period of validity is that the passport
       should be issued for a shorter duration, usually one year, and not that renewal must
       be refused altogether. The learned Single Judge and the Division Bench did not
       examine this aspect, because they proceeded on the premise that the appellant
       stood outside the exemption altogether. Once it is recognised that the appellant is
       within the exempted class, the correct question for the passport authority is the
       appropriate period of validity in the facts of the case, not whether any renewal is
       permissible at all. In the present matter, given that the Delhi High Court has
       expressly authorised renewal for ten years and the NIA Court has imposed
       stringent conditions including redeposit and prior permission for travel, we see no
       justification to curtail the normal period of validity.
                                          6
                                                           WRIC No. - 23352 of 2026

       25. In the light of the above discussion, we are unable to sustain the approach
       adopted by the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench. Both have treated
       Section 6(2)(f) as an absolute bar so long as any criminal proceeding is pending,
       without giving full effect to the statutory exemption mechanism under Section 22
       and GSR 570(E), and without adequately appreciating that the criminal courts
       actually dealing with the appellant's cases have consciously permitted renewal
       while retaining stringent control over any foreign travel. They have, in effect,
       converted a qualified restriction, designed to secure the presence of an accused,
       into a near-permanent disability to hold a valid passport, even where the criminal
       courts themselves do not consider such a disability necessary.”

10.   What we, therefore, remind the Regional Passport Officer is
that the pendency of a criminal case is no bar to the re-issue of a
fresh passport ipso facto. The fact, if a criminal case was indeed
pending on the date when the petitioner applied for the passport
and suppressed the fact from the Passport Authority, is another
matter, for which the Passport Authority must hold a quick and
dependable inquiry supported by documentary evidence relating
to the case from the Court, where the cases against the petitioner
were or are pending, before forming any opinion in the matter, if
indeed suppression of any kind was done by the petitioner in his
application. The Regional Passport Officer will also bear in mind
that every non-disclosure is suppression. In order to constitute
non-disclosure of certain information in the passport application, it
must be established that the petitioner or the applicant before the
Regional Passport Officer was aware of the fact, which he did not
disclose. If for some reason, the petitioner was under some
misconception about the fact, if a case was indeed pending
against him and he bona fide did not disclose it thinking that it was
over, it might not amount to suppression. It would also be borne in
mind by the Regional Passport Officer that the cases against the
petitioner, at least one of them, about which documents have
come, is petty in nature, and in the nature of things, might not
have resulted in consequences, that made the petitioner aware
about the p recise status of the case. About the other case,
that is to say, the one other than that under the Gambling Act, the
Passport Officer has to verify facts, but he must do that
expeditiously. The two matters will be separately borne in
mind by the Regional Passport Officer, that is to say, the fact if
                                                                    7
                                                                                 WRIC No. - 23352 of 2026

                            indeed cases were pending against the petitioner on the date he
                            made his application for the re-issue of a passport, which he
                            deliberately did not disclose, and the other is that if he did not do
                            so, that is to say, deliberately suppress information, but the cases
                            are still pending, the mere pendency of a criminal case does not
                            entitle the Passport Authorities to insist with the petitioner upon
                            obtaining an N.O.C. looking to the law laid down by the Supreme
                            Court in Mahesh Kumar Agarwal (supra). In the later event, the
                            Passport Authority must follow the guidance of the Supreme Court
                            in Mahesh Kumar Agarwal alone and decide the matter. In order
                            to enable the Regional Passport Officer to effectively pass his
                            orders, the petitioner will appear before him on any date that the
                            Passport Officer now requires him to do with all such documents
                            that he might have in his possession relevant to the issue, or
                            which the Passport Officer requires him to produce.

                            11.         This petition is disposed of in terms of the aforesaid orders.

                            12.         Let a copy of this order be communicated to the Secretary,
                            Ministry of External Affairs, Union of India, New Delhi through the
                            learned Registrar General of Delhi High Court by the Registrar
                            General of this Court and the Competent Authority/ Passport
                            Officer, Regional Passport Office, Vipin Khand, Gomti Nagar,
                            Lucknow through the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow
                            by the Registrar (Compliance).



                                                                   (Indrajeet Shukla,J.) (J.J. Munir,J.)

                            September 21, 2026
                            Anoop




Digitally signed by :-
ANOOP KUMAR SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad