No Travel Restrictions In Bail Order : Allahabad HC Directs Trial Court To Grant Passport NOC To Dancer Sapna Choudhary

The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) last week set aside a lower court order that refused to grant a 'No Objection Certificate' (NOC) to popular Actor-Dancer and stage performer, Sapna Choudhary, for the renewal of her passport.

Allowing her application filed under Section 482 CrPC, a bench of Justice Pankaj Bhatia directed the trial court to issue an NOC to her for renewal.

The Court noted that the bail order in the pending criminal case, Choudhary, had not imposed any restrictions on her leaving the country.

It also added that no material exists to suggest that Choudhary would be at flight risk or that her application for reissuance/ renewal of the passport should not be considered in view of the absence of any adverse conduct of the applicant.

Briefly put, a lower court in June last year rejected Choudhary's request for an NOC mainly on the ground that she had not filed any document relevant to the specific period of travel, the country to which the applicant wishes to travel or for any other purpose.

The reason why Choudhary sought an NOC is that she is facing a 2018 FIR under Sections 406, 420 IPC over the alleged cancellation of a show in Lucknow. In that case, she was enlarged on bail, but no such condition was imposed on her that she couldn't leave the country without the permission of the Court.

It may be noted that as per the office memorandum issued under the Passports Act, a person facing a criminal case has to obtain an NOC from the court concerned.

When she was denied the NOC, she moved the HC, where her counsel contended that she was not only deprived of a passport to travel abroad, as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, but that the order also violated her right to earn a livelihood.

Regarding the status of the pendency of the case, it was argued that there is no material to suggest that the case is proceeding and there is no likelihood that it would conclude in the near future.

It is also argued that the applicant has two children and substantial property within India and no material exists to suggest that the applicant would be at flight risk.

The counsel for the Union of India, on the other hand, justified the impugned order and argued that there is no independent right of renewal of a passport, and that any such right is vested and subject to the restrictions contained in Section 6(2) of the Passports Act.

In her rejoinder, Choudhary submitted that in view of the prevailing global scenario, the organisers occasionally insist that the performer and the team should have valid passports. Thus, and thus, it may not always be possible to furnish the requisite documents at an earlier point in time.

Against this backdrop, the Court prima facie opined that no material exists to suggest that the applicant would be at flight risk or that her application for reissuance/ renewal of the passport should not be considered in view of absence any adverse conduct of the applicant.

It also noted that on account of the non-issuance/ non-grant of a passport, her rights are infringed.

“...merely because no documents have been filed, the request for travel abroad cannot be denied as has been done in the impugned order,” the court added.

The Bench further relied on the Apex Court's judgment in the case of Mahesh Kumar Agarwal vs Union of India and another 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1238 to emphasize that liberty is “not a gift of the State but its first obligation”.

In this case, the top court had observed that Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, which deals with the refusal of passports to those facing criminal proceedings, is not an absolute bar.

In its order passed on January 7, Justice Bhatia observed that the issuance of a passport and the condition not to leave the country without permission of a court are two distinct issues.

The Court found that the impugned order was premised on the foundation that restrictions were imposed on the applicant's right to travel abroad. However, the High Court noted that no such restrictions appeared to be imposed on the applicant, even in the bail order.

Thus, the court accepted her plea and the trial court was directed to grant her NOC for a passport to be processed for a period of 10 years.

Advocate Preeti Singh appeared for Choudhary.

AGA and Senior Advocate and DSGI SB Pandey, assisted by Advocate Varun Pandey, appeared for the opposite parties no. 3 and 4.

Case title - Sapna @ Sapna Choudhary vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 19

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 19

Click Here To Read/Download Order