JUDGMENT Mr. Rajan Gupta, J. (Oral): - The petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 22nd January, 2011, passed by District & Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, whereby his application for grant of ‘No Objection Certificate’ (hereinafter referred to be as “NOC” for renewal of his passport, was declined. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that at the time, the petitioner was granted concession of bail, a condition was imposed that he would not leave the country without permission of the trial court. Passport issued to the petitioner expired on 19th December, 2009, due to which he applied for grant of NOC, as required by the Passport Authority. However, same has been declined by the court below. According to counsel, the order is palpably wrong as no ground has been assigned for rejecting the application of the petitioner. He has placed reliance on a judgment passed by this court in Crl. Misc. No. M-16894 of 2010 titled Harpreet Singh Sandhu Vs. State of Punjab and a judgment of the Bombay High Court reported as Shyam Dwarkadas Chabria v. Regional Passport Officer and another, 2000 Crl. Law Journal 2942. 3. Learned State counsel has, however, vehemently opposed the prayer. He submits that petitioner is facing trial in a corruption case and in case allowed to travel abroad, likelihood of his absconding from justice cannot be ruled out. He has further submitted that there is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure for issuance of a no objection certificate. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and given careful thought to the facts of the case. 5. It appears that petitioner is facing trial in FIR No.5 dated 23.3.2007, registered by the Vigilance Bureau for commission of offences under Sections 409, 420, 465, 467, 471, and 120-B IPC and Sections 7.13 (i) (c) & (d) and 13 (2)/14 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. During the pendency of trial, he applied for bail which was granted by this court on 7th February, 2008. It was, however, directed therein that petitioner would not leave the country at any stage without the permission of the trial court. During the pendency of trial, passport of the petitioner expired on 19th December, 2009. He, thus, moved an application before the trial court to grant him NOC as same was a prerequisite for submitting application for renewal of passport. During the pendency of trial, passport of the petitioner expired on 19th December, 2009. He, thus, moved an application before the trial court to grant him NOC as same was a prerequisite for submitting application for renewal of passport. The said application was, however, rejected by the Sessions Judge, Ludhiana. During the course of hearing, a query was put to learned counsel whether there is any provision of law under which a trial court can issue ‘no objection certificate’ for renewal of the passport. In reply, he merely referred to the application form issued by the Passport Authority and columns 17 (b) and (c) thereof to submit that in view of the same trial court is required to consider the prayer for issuance of a NOC. I am not convinced with this argument. Undoubtedly, the court has power to consider any application moved by the accused for permission to travel abroad during the pendency of trial. Law is well settled on this issue. However, no provision has been brought to the notice of the court which empowers a trial court to issue a no objection certificate. It is, thus, highly doubtful that a judicial court would be in any position to issue a certificate of this nature. In case an application form has been prescribed by the Passport Authority wherein such condition has been incorporated, it would be meaningless for a court conducting a trial. Section 437 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure enables the court to impose certain conditions on the accused while granting him bail. In case an application form has been prescribed by the Passport Authority wherein such condition has been incorporated, it would be meaningless for a court conducting a trial. Section 437 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure enables the court to impose certain conditions on the accused while granting him bail. The said provision read thus:- “(3) When a person accused or suspected of the commission of an offence punishable with imprisonment which may extend to seven years or more or of an offence under Chapter VI, Chapter XVI or Chapter XVII of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) or abetment of, or conspiracy or attempt to commit, any such offence, is released on bail under sub-section (1) [the Court shall impose the conditions,- (a) that such person shall attend in accordance with the conditions of the bond executed under this Chapter, (b) that such person shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected, and (c) that such person shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence, and may also impose, in the interest of justice, such other conditions as it considers necessary.]” 6. A perusal of aforesaid section shows that certain conditions are necessarily to be imposed while granting bail to an accused, suspected of commission of offence punishable with imprisonment which may extend to seven years or more. Additionally, the court is empowered to impose such other conditions as it deem necessary in the interests of justice. Similar power is available with court of Sessions and the High Court. Reference may be made to Section 439 (1) (a) Cr.P.C. in this regard which may reads thus:- “439 (1) (a). that any person accused of an offence and in custody be released on bail, and if the offence is of the nature specified in sub-section (3) of section 437, may impose any condition which it considers necessary for the purposes mentioned in that sub-section;” 7. that any person accused of an offence and in custody be released on bail, and if the offence is of the nature specified in sub-section (3) of section 437, may impose any condition which it considers necessary for the purposes mentioned in that sub-section;” 7. A similar provision is contained in Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C. Sub Section (2) (iii) thereof empowers the court to impose a condition that a person would not leave India without previous permission of the court. Sub section (2) (iv) empowers the court to impose such conditions as envisaged by Section 437 (3) Cr.P.C. It is, thus, clear that while granting anticipatory or regular bail to an accused, the courts can impose a condition restricting the right of the accused to travel abroad. However, on applications being moved, the court is competent to waive this condition for certain period and permit a person to go abroad during the pendency of trial. This may be subject to such conditions as the court may deem necessary. In the instant case, however, the petitioner seeks a certificate from the court that it would have no objection in case passport issued to him is renewed. Such an application, in my considered view, is misconceived. There appears to be no provision in Cr.P.C. which would permit the trial court to grant such a certificate. Merely because there is some column in the passport application which requires an accused to furnish such a certificate, the trial court would not be able to consider such a request there being no such provision in the code. Renewal of passport is an issue which is primarily between the applicant and the passport authority. The court conducting a trial, normally has no role to play at the time of issuance/renewal of passport. Granting permission to go abroad during the pendency of trial is, however, another matter. As observed above, the trial court has such a power which it can exercise after considering the facts and circumstances of the case and on imposition of such conditions as it may deem necessary. I am of the considered view that the judgment in Harpreet Singh Sandhu’s (supra), on which reliance has been placed, is not applicable to the facts of the present case, as reference therein is only to column 17 (c) of the passport application. I am of the considered view that the judgment in Harpreet Singh Sandhu’s (supra), on which reliance has been placed, is not applicable to the facts of the present case, as reference therein is only to column 17 (c) of the passport application. This apart, it is not clear under which offence the accused in said case was facing trial. As regards the judgment of Bombay High Court in Shyam Dwarkadas Chabria (supra), in said case permission was granted to the accused to move an appropriate court before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pune for permission to travel abroad. It was further directed that in case such application was allowed by the concerned court, the passport authority would grant necessary permission to the petitioner to travel abroad. There is no dispute with the proposition of law laid down in the said judgment. It has already been clarified that accused can move appropriate application before the trial court seeking permission to go abroad. In the judgment aforesaid, there is no reference to any ‘no objection certificate’ to be granted by the trial court. Thus, reliance on said judgment in support of the proposition canvassed, is misplaced. 8. I am, thus, of the considered view that there is no merit in this petition. The same is hereby dismissed. --------------