The bench of Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Indrajeet Shukla held,

“The mere grant of a passport does not arm the holder with a spontaneous passage across borders. It requires applications for visas from the host country and also immigration procedures. In the event of the holder of the passport is endeavoring to travel abroad, it is always open to the Police or the other prosecuting agency involved to move the Court for the purpose of requiring the holder of the passport to surrender his passport so as to prevent him from leaving Indian shores.”

According to the petitioner, his application for issuance of passport was being withheld due to pendency of 2 criminal cases against him. He approached the High Court for issuance of passport.

The Court held,

“It is not that in each and every case, the Court would deny permission. The Court may grant permission subject to conditions. All these are matters in the province of the Court, when the eventuality of a man, who is facing criminal proceedings and endeavoring to travel abroad arises. The issue of a passport is not that stage, when the petitioner is endeavoring to travel abroad.”

Observing that mere pendency of criminal case is not a ground to reject issuance of passport, the Court held,

“The passport is essentially a civil document to which a citizen is entitled under the law and it is prima facie no business of the passport authorities to deny a passport on the ground that a criminal case is pending. It is another matter if the pendency of the criminal case is suppressed in the application made for the purpose.”

Relying on the decision of Supreme Court in Mahesh Kumar Agarwal v. Union of India, the Court issued an ad interim mandamus to the Regional Passport Officer, Lucknow to consider petitioner's application for grant of passport.

The case has been adjourned to 30^th September 2026.

Case Title: Mohd. Aftab v. Union of India and others