Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Allahabad High Court

VIKRAM SINGHversusUNION OF INDIA, AND 4 OTHER

Decided

Holding

The petitioner's passport can be issued provided he obtains appropriate permission from the court where the criminal case is pending or from the superior court that has stayed the proceedings.

Summary

Vikram Singh applied for a passport which was held up because he is implicated in a criminal case (Case Crime No. 314 of 2024) under Sections 324(4), 352, 115(2), 333 and 191(2) of the B.N.S, P.S. Sheeshgarh, Bareilly. He relied on the Allahabad High Court’s earlier decision in Pawan Kumar Rajbhar (2023) that mere pendency of a criminal case does not bar passport issuance if the petitioner obtains a court’s permission. The Court also cited Rahimuddin (2025), which held that when a criminal proceeding is stayed by a superior court, the permission for a passport must be sought from that superior court. The bench directed the petitioner to approach the court where the criminal case is pending, or the superior court that has stayed the proceedings, for a No‑Objection Certificate. Upon receipt of such permission, the passport authorities were instructed to decide within two months, and the writ petition was disposed.

Issues considered

  • Whether the pendency of a criminal case automatically disqualifies a person from obtaining a passport
  • Whether the petitioner must obtain a No‑Objection Certificate from the court where the criminal case is pending or from a superior court that has stayed the proceedings

Legislation cited

  • B.N.S, P.S. Sheeshgarh — s. 115(2), 191(2), 324(4), 333, 352

Subjects

  • passport issuance
  • criminal case pendency
  • No‑Objection Certificate
  • stay of proceedings
  • writ petition
  • High Court

Judgment

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                        WRIT - C No. - 9324 of 2026

Vikram Singh
                                                            .....Petitioner(s)
                                   Versus

Union Of India, And 4 Other
                                                          .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)                      :   Akhilesh Kumar
Counsel for Respondent(s)                      :   A.S.G.I., C.S.C.

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

1. Heard Sri Akhilesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri
Rahul Anand Gaur, learned counsel for the respondents.

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. 314 of 2024,
under Sections 324(4), 352, 115(2), 333, 191(2) of B.N.S, P.S.
Sheeshgarh, District- Bareilly 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. 9324 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.