JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J. 1. Heard Mr. Indrajit Sinha assisted by Mr. Rishav Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.C. Sinha, learned counsel for the State. 2. This petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 01.02.2022 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Jamshedpur in connection with Bistupur P.S. Case No. 87 of 2020 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 659 of 2021 whereby the learned court has been pleased to reject the petition dated 19.01.2022 preferred by the petitioner for grant of No Objection Certificate for the purpose of renewal of the petitioner's passport, pending in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Jamshedpur. 3. The informant namely Suraj Kumar, Junior Engineer, Swarnarekha Project cum Deputation Magistrate, Bistupur, Jamshedpur got the information that the Spa in the Alcor Hotel was open and some arrangement for parties were being made during prohibitory lock down period of COVID-19 and on that ground the FIR was lodged under Sections 188, 269, 270 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 54 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 and Section 3 of the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897. 4. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that charge-sheet has been submitted in that case and cognizance has been taken and the petitioner is facing trial. He further submits that for renewal of passport, the petitioner had earlier preferred W.P. (C) No. 2574 of 2021 which was disposed of vide order dated 06.12.2021 with direction to file fresh representation before the authority concerned for taking decision on the prayer of renewal of passport. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner filed representation which was disposed of by the Passport Officer, Ranchi and directed the petitioner to obtain No Objection Certificate from the concerned court. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner filed a petition on 19.01.2022 which was considered by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and the same has been rejected. He also submits that the case of the petitioner comes under Sub-section 2(f) of Section 6 of the Passports Act, 1967. He further submits that the petitioner was required to go abroad with regard to his business and for that renewal was required to be done, which has been refused. He also submits that the case of the petitioner comes under Sub-section 2(f) of Section 6 of the Passports Act, 1967. He further submits that the petitioner was required to go abroad with regard to his business and for that renewal was required to be done, which has been refused. He also submits that refusal to renew a Passport infringes the petitioner's Right to Equality and the Right to Personal Liberty as enshrined under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in several judgments. He relied upon paragraph 5 of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satish Chandra Verma vs. Union of India and Others, 2019 SCC Online SC 2048. 5. Paragraph 5 of the said judgment is quoted herein-below: “5. The right to travel abroad is an important basic human right for it nourishes independent and self-determining creative character of the individual, not only by extending his freedoms of action, but also by extending the scope of his experience. The right also extends to private life; marriage, family and friendship are humanities which can be rarely affected through refusal of freedom to go abroad and clearly show that this freedom is a genuine human right. [See: Mrs. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248 ]. In the said judgment, there is a reference to the words of Justice Douglas in Kent vs. Dulles, (1958) 357 US 116 which are as follows: “Freedom to go abroad has much social value and represents the basic human right of great significance.” 6. By way of referring Annexure-B of the counter affidavit filed by the State, Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the police has verified and given a report that there is no difficulty in renewing the passport and in spite of that the learned court below has not issued No Objection Certificate. He further submits that the learned court below has refused to issue No Objection Certificate on two grounds; firstly that the petitioner was having ill intention of getting undue advantage by concealing the material facts and secondly the petitioner has not disclosed the time by when he will return after attending the Seminar. He further submits that the petitioner has got no intention to flee away as he is having business at Jamshedpur. 7. He further submits that the petitioner has got no intention to flee away as he is having business at Jamshedpur. 7. On the other hand, Mr. P.C. Sinha, learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioner was facing four criminal cases, which was concealed in filling up the form and the learned court has rightly not issued No Objection Certificate. 8. On perusal of the nature of the case, it appears that the petitioner is facing case with regard to Disaster Management Act, 2005 and Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 and the alleged sections of both the Acts are bailable in nature. There is no allegation against the petitioner that he is involved in taking Government money and there is no likelihood that the petitioner will take a flight and will not return to the country. The police report is in favour of the petitioner. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satish Chandra Verma (supra) and in the case of Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248 that the right to travel abroad is an important basic human right. Sub-Section 2(f) of Section 6 of the Passports Act, 1967 will be applicable to the case of the petitioner. Section 6 of the Passports Act, 1967 reads as follows: “6. Refusal of passports, travel documents: (1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the passport authority shall refuse to make an endorsement for visiting any foreign country under clause (b) or clause (c) of sub-section (2) of Section 5 on any one or more of the following grounds, and on no other ground, namely: (a) that the applicant may, or is likely to, engage in such country in activities prejudicial to the sovereignty and integrity of India. (b) that the presence of the applicant in such country may, or is likely to, be detrimental to the security of India. (c) that the presence of the applicant in such country may, or is likely to, prejudice the friendly relations of India with that or any other country. (d) that in the opinion of the Central Government the presence of the applicant in such country is not in the public interest. (c) that the presence of the applicant in such country may, or is likely to, prejudice the friendly relations of India with that or any other country. (d) that in the opinion of the Central Government the presence of the applicant in such country is not in the public interest. (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: (a) that the applicant is not a citizen of India. (b) that the applicant may, or is likely to, engage outside India in activities prejudicial to the sovereignty and integrity of India. (c) that the departure of the applicant from India may, or is likely to, be detrimental to the security of India. (d) that the presence of the applicant outside India may, or is likely to, prejudice the friendly relations of India with any foreign country. (e) that the applicant has, at any time during the period of five years immediately preceding the date of his application, been convicted by a court in India for any offence involving moral turpitude and sentenced in respect thereof to imprisonment for not less than two years. (f) that proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant are pending before a criminal court in India. (g) that a warrant or summons for the appearance, or a warrant for the arrest, of the applicant has been issued by a court under any law for the time being in force or that an order prohibiting the departure from India of the applicant has been made by any such court; (h) that the applicant has been repatriated and has not reimbursed the expenditure incurred in connection with such repatriation. (i) that in the opinion of the Central Government the issue of a passport or travel document to the applicant will not be in the public interest.” 9. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu vs. Central Bureau of Investigation in Criminal Appeal No. 1342 of 2017 has considered no objection for renewal of the passport and directed to renew the passport of that appellant. 10. Admittedly, at present, the petitioner has not been convicted. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu vs. Central Bureau of Investigation in Criminal Appeal No. 1342 of 2017 has considered no objection for renewal of the passport and directed to renew the passport of that appellant. 10. Admittedly, at present, the petitioner has not been convicted. The petitioner is facing trial and the sections, against which the petitioner is facing trial, are bailable. The petitioner is not facing any defalcation proceeding of huge amount. The petitioner is required to travel abroad for his business purpose. Moreover, the petitioner is having passport which is required to be renewed. 11. It is a duty of the authority concerned to find out suitability of the Visa to be granted for how many days in favour of the petitioner, that is not the concerned of the court. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur shall issue No Objection Certificate in favour of the petitioner. 12. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 01.02.2022 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Jamshedpur in connection with Bistupur P.S. Case No. 87 of 2020 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 659 of 2021 is modified to the above extent. 13. Resultantly, this petition stands disposed of.