Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Allahabad High Court

MANOJ KUMAR SINGHversusUNION OF INDIA AND 2 OTHERS

Decided

Holding

A passport may be issued if the petitioner obtains a No‑Objection Certificate or permission from the court where the criminal case is pending or from the superior court that has stayed the proceedings.

Summary

Manoj Kumar Singh applied for a passport but the application was held up because he is implicated in a criminal case (Case Crime No. 867 of 2013) under Sections 406, 420, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner relied on the Division Bench judgment 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, the permission must be sought from that superior court. The Allahabad High Court 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 automatically disqualifies a person from obtaining a passport.
  • What is the appropriate forum from which a petitioner must obtain permission to issue a passport when a criminal case is pending or stayed.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • passport issuance
  • criminal case pendency
  • No‑Objection Certificate
  • Indian Penal Code
  • Section 406
  • Section 420
  • Section 504
  • Section 506
  • high court writ
  • stay of proceedings

Judgment

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                        WRIT - C No. - 9273 of 2026

Manoj Kumar Singh
                                                            .....Petitioner(s)
                                   Versus

Union Of India And 2 Others
                                                          .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)            :   Arvind Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Respondent(s)            :   A.S.G.I., C.S.C., Ishan Shishu

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

1. Heard Sri Arvind Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Shri Ishan Shishu, 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 Case Crime No. 867 of 2013,
under Sections 406, 420, 504, 506 of I.P.C., P.S. Cantt., District-
Gorakhpur 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
fresh decision in the matter relating to issuance of the petitioner's
                                                                                            WRIC No. 9273 of 2026
                                                                    2


                                    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.