Judicial authorities supporting refusal of permission for passport/travel abroad

 

Judicial authorities supporting refusal of permission for passport/travel abroad

A distinction must be maintained between:

1. Issuance or renewal of a passport by the Passport Authority; and
2. Permission to leave India or release of a deposited passport by the criminal court.

Mere pendency of a criminal proceeding may not justify mechanical refusal in every case. However, the court may refuse permission where credible material shows a risk of abscondence, previous non-cooperation, violation of bail conditions, pending warrants, likelihood of delaying the trial, or prejudice to the investigation.

1. Mahesh Kumar Agarwal v. Union of India & Another, 2025 INSC 1476

The Supreme Court recognised the authority of the criminal court to regulate the issuance and use of a passport while criminal proceedings are pending. Although passport issuance cannot be mechanically refused, permission to travel abroad remains subject to judicial supervision.

The decision supports refusal where the applicant:

• is likely to evade the proceedings;
• has not complied with earlier directions;
• cannot satisfactorily secure his return;
• has withheld details of pending criminal cases; or
• seeks unrestricted travel inconsistent with the conditions of bail.

The restriction must, however, be necessary, proportionate and supported by recorded reasons.

 

2. Gian Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (1999) 5 SCC 694

The Supreme Court recognised the legitimate apprehension that an accused permitted to leave India might not return for trial. Although the passport was ultimately released in that case, it was released only after the accused executed a substantial bond with two solvent sureties and undertook to remain available when his presence was indispensable.

This judgment supports the proposition that the court must first secure the accused’s attendance and may refuse permission where bonds, sureties or other safeguards are inadequate.

3. Ruddrakhya Ghosh v. State of West Bengal, CRR 148 of 2026, decided on 27 April 2026, Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court examined an order refusing return of a passport on the grounds that the accused had allegedly evaded notices, failed to cooperate and might flee justice. The High Court ultimately ordered conditional release because those allegations were not adequately supported by the record.

The judgment is important for the opposite side because it identifies the circumstances that can justify refusal: proven non-cooperation, avoidance of summons, outstanding warrants, previous breach of undertakings, or other objective material establishing flight risk. Mere apprehension, without supporting records, is insufficient.

Statutory grounds supporting refusal

Under Section 6(2) of the Passports Act, 1967, refusal may be justified where:

• criminal proceedings are pending before a court—Section 6(2)(f);
• summons or warrant for appearance or arrest remains outstanding—Section 6(2)(g);
• an order prohibiting departure from India is operating—Section 6(2)(g);
• the applicant was recently convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude and sentenced to imprisonment for at least two years—Section 6(2)(e);
• issuance would be contrary to public interest—Section 6(2)(i).

The exemption under G.S.R. 570(E), dated 25 August 1993, is conditional. The applicant must obtain the appropriate court order, disclose all pending criminal cases and undertake to appear whenever required.

Grounds that may be urged in opposition

Refusal of permission may be sought where:

1. The applicant has previously remained absent without exemption.
2. Summons, bailable warrants, non-bailable warrants or proclamation proceedings are pending.
3. The applicant suppressed material facts concerning other criminal cases.
4. The applicant violated an earlier undertaking or overstayed after previous permission.
5. The investigation or trial is at a crucial stage requiring personal presence.
6. The applicant has foreign employment, assets or permanent connections and insufficient ties within India, creating a genuine flight risk.
7. The reason and duration of travel are vague or unsupported by tickets, invitation letters, medical records or employment documents.
8. The applicant has not supplied a definite itinerary, foreign address or date of return.
9. The proposed travel conflicts with existing bail conditions.
10. The applicant has attempted to influence witnesses, tamper with evidence or delay the proceedings.