Allahabad High Court
MOHAMMAD ASAFAR @ SADDAMversusUNION OF INDIA AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The Court held that the petitioner must obtain a no‑objection certificate from the court where the criminal case is pending (or the superior court that stayed it) before the passport authorities can grant renewal.
Summary
The petitioner sought renewal of his passport, which was held up because he is implicated in a criminal case (Crime No. 353 of 2025) under several IPC sections. He relied on earlier judgments that mere pendency of a criminal case does not automatically bar passport renewal if the petitioner obtains permission from the court where the case is pending. The Court observed that when a criminal proceeding is stayed by a higher court, the petitioner must obtain a no‑objection certificate from that superior court or the court where the case is pending. Accordingly, the petitioner was directed to approach the concerned court for such permission, after which the passport authorities may decide on renewal within two months. The writ petition was therefore disposed without granting a passport renewal order.
Issues considered
- Whether the pendency of a criminal case under IPC sections 115(2), 352, 351(3), 504, 506 bars the renewal of 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
- Indian Penal Code — s. 115(2), 351(3), 352, 504, 506
Subjects
- passport renewal
- criminal case pendency
- no objection certificate
- writ petition
- Indian Penal Code
- jurisdiction
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 9353 of 2026
Mohammad Asafar @ Saddam
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Union Of India And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Rajesh Kumar
Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.S.G.I., C.S.C., Ritu
Court No. - 2
HON'BLE ATUL SREEDHARAN, J.
HON'BLE SIDDHARTH NANDAN, J.
1. Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.
Ritu learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3.
2. Petitioner's application for renew 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. 353 of 2025, under
Sections 115(2), 352, 351(3), 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Devgaon, District-
Azamgarh cannot be a ground to deny renew 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 renew of the petitioner's passport.
WRIC No. 9353 of 2026
2
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
piyush
Digitally signed by :-
PIYUSH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…