Nakul Sen v. Regional Passport Officer Delhi & Anr

O R D E R %

07.11.2024 CRL.M.A. 24280/2024 (for exemption)

¶1Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶2The application stands disposed of.

¶3The present petition is filed seeking directions for renewal of the passport of the petitioner for a period of ten years.

¶4It is the grievance of the petitioner that his passport has The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. been renewed only for a period of one year at a time.

¶5The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial in the present case is pending for more than ten years. He submits that the petitioner has travelled abroad on many occasions in that period and he has never misused the liberty.

¶6Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967 reads as under: "6. Refusal of passports, travel documents. etc. xxx

xxx

xxx

xxx

(2) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the passport authority shall refuse to issue a passport or travel document for visiting any foreign country under clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 5 on any one or more of the following grounds, and on no other ground, namely: - xxx

xxx

xxx

xxx

(f) that proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant are pending before a criminal court in India"

¶7In terms of Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967, the passport authorities can refuse the issuance/ renewal of the passport in case proceedings are pending in respect of any offence against the applicant before the criminal courts in India.

¶8In terms of the notification GSR 570(E) dated 25.08.1993, the rules have been relaxed to the extent that the operation of Section 6(2)(f) is exempted on a No Objection Certificate from the concerned criminal Court.

¶9In such a scenario, the authorities are to issue/renew the passport for a period as specified in the order of the Court.

¶10Concededly, the petitioner was admitted on bail way back by order dated 27.06.2013.

¶11It is not the case of the prosecution that the concession of bail was ever misused. It is also significant to note that no condition was imposed by the learned Trial Court while admitting the petitioner on bail in regards to his travel. Therefore, there is no impediment on the petitioner in traveling The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. out of this country.

¶12The State also has not filed any report contending that there is an apprehension that if the petitioner travels abroad, he will misuse the liberty or will not appear before the learned Trial Court.

¶13It is also an admitted fact that the petitioner had travelled abroad on many occasions after he was admitted on bail. The petitioner is stated to be a Fashion Designer and is required to travel abroad on regular basis.

¶14In view of the above, the passport authorities are directed to renew the passport of the petitioner for a period of ten years subject to the petitioner fulfilling all other applicable conditions.

¶15The petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. AMIT MAHAJAN, J NOVEMBER 7, 2024 "SS" The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + NAKUL SEN .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Nitin Mehta, Ms. Arushi Sethi & Mr. Arpit Rawat, Advs. versus REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Rahul Tyagi, ASC for the State (Crl.) with Mr. Sangeet Sibou, Mr. Aniket, Ms. Priya Rai & Mr. Abhishek Tomar, Advs. SI Parveen Kumar, PS- Malviya Nagar Mr. Ravi Prakash, CGSC with Mr. Farman Ali, Mr. Ali Khan, Ms. Usha Jamnal, Mr. Taha Yasin, Ms. Astu Khandelwal, Mr. Yasharth Shukla & Ms. Isha Kant, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN