Allahabad High Court
HALEEMUDDINversusUNION OF INDIA AND 4 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The petitioner must obtain a No‑Objection Certificate from the court where the criminal case is pending or from the superior court that has stayed the proceedings before the passport can be issued.
Summary
Petitioner Haleemuddin applied for a passport which was withheld because he is implicated in a criminal case under Sections 115(2) and 352 of the B.N.S. P.S. Saraimeer, Azamgarh. He relied on the Allahabad High Court’s earlier decisions in Pawan Kumar Rajbhar (2023) and Rahimuddin (2025) to argue that mere pendency of the case should not bar passport issuance if a court permission is obtained. The Court held that the petitioner must seek a No‑Objection Certificate from the court where the criminal matter is pending, or from the superior court that has stayed the proceedings. Upon obtaining such permission, the passport authorities are to make a fresh decision within two months. Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether the pendency of a criminal case under Sections 115(2) and 352 of the B.N.S. P.S. Saraimeer is a valid ground to deny issuance of a passport.
- What procedural step must a petitioner follow to obtain a passport when a criminal case is pending or stayed.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. P.S. Saraimeer — s. 115(2), 352
Subjects
- passport issuance
- criminal case pendency
- No‑Objection Certificate
- stay of proceedings
- high court writ petition
- Indian procedural law
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 8138 of 2026
Haleemuddin
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Union Of India And 4 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ashok Kumar Srivastava, Sabana
Azami
Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.S.G.I., C.S.C., Seema Singh
Court No. - 2
HON'BLE ATUL SREEDHARAN, J.
HON'BLE SIDDHARTH NANDAN, J.
1. Heard Sri Ashok Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Mrs. Seema Singh, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 2.
2. Petitioner's application for issuance of passport apparently has been
kept pending on account of his implication in criminal case. Reliance is
placed upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Writ - C No.
41540 of 2023 (Pawan Kumar Rajbhar Vs. Union of India & 2 Ors.), in
order to contend that mere pendency of an NCR under Sections 115(2)
and 352 of B.N.S. P.S. Saraimeer, District- Azamgarh cannot be a ground
to deny issuance of passport to the petitioner, provided appropriate
permission is taken by the petitioner from the Court, where the case is
pending.
3. A learned co-ordinate Bench in Rahimuddin Vs. Union Of India And
Another, Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:181505-DB has
unequivocally held that where a criminal case has been stayed by a
superior Court, the permission for issuance of passport, shall be sought
from the superior Court, which stayed the criminal proceedings.
4. In the facts of the case, we permit the petitioner to approach the
concerned court where the aforesaid case is pending for grant of no
objection certificate or approach such superior Court, which has stayed
the proceeding before the trial court or has passed the order granting any
interim protection to the petitioner, so that the passport authorities take a
WRIC No. 8138 of 2026
2
fresh decision in the matter relating to issuance of the petitioner's
passport. Petitioner, therefore, is at liberty to approach the concerned
court which shall act in terms of the law laid down in Pawan Kumar
Rajbhar and Rahimuddin (supra) and based upon its decision, the
passport authorities would do the needful by passing appropriate orders
within a further period of two months, thereafter.
5. Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of.
(Siddharth Nandan,J.) (Atul Sreedharan,J.)
March 19, 2026
Sumit K.
Digitally signed by :-
SUMIT KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…