Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Allahabad High Court

RAKESH KUMARversusUNION OF INDIA AND 4 OTHERS

Decided

Holding

A passport may be issued if the petitioner obtains the requisite permission from the court where the criminal case is pending or from the superior court that has stayed the proceedings.

Summary

The petitioner, Rakesh Kumar, sought a passport but his application was held up because he is implicated in a criminal case (Case Crime No. 0672 of 2020) involving offences under Sections 147, 323, 406, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. He relied on the Allahabad High Court’s earlier decision in Pawan Kumar Rajbhar v. Union of India, which held that mere pendency of a criminal case is not a ground to deny a passport if the petitioner obtains permission from the court where the case is pending. The Court also referred to Rahimuddin v. Union of India, which directs that where a criminal proceeding is stayed by a superior court, permission for a passport must be sought from that superior court. The bench directed the petitioner to approach the concerned trial court or the superior court that has stayed the proceedings for a no‑objection certificate, after which the passport authorities must decide within two months. Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed.

Issues considered

  • Whether the pendency of a criminal case under the IPC bars the issuance of a passport to the accused.
  • What is the appropriate forum from which the petitioner must obtain permission or a no‑objection certificate for passport issuance.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • passport issuance
  • criminal case pendency
  • no objection certificate
  • superior court jurisdiction
  • Indian Penal Code
  • writ petition

Judgment

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                        WRIT - C No. - 9243 of 2026

Rakesh Kumar
                                                            .....Petitioner(s)
                                   Versus

Union Of India And 4 Others
                                                          .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)       : Akash Kumar Nishad, Yashvant Kumar
                                  Venvansh
Counsel for Respondent(s)       : A.S.G.I., C.S.C., Munna Kumar Singh

Court No. - 2
                 HON'BLE ATUL SREEDHARAN, J.
                 HON'BLE SIDDHARTH NANDAN, J.

1. Heard Sri Akash Kumar Nishad, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Shri Munna Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 3.

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 Case Crime No. 0672 of 2020,
under Sections 147, 323, 406, 504, 506 of I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali, District-
Deoria 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. 9243 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


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.