JUDGMENT 1. Heard Mr. Syed Ashfaq Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P. Devender, learned Central Government Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. The petitioner herein is a Holder of Passport bearing No.S6472065 which was obtained in the year 2018 and the same is valid up to 17/10/2028. Since there was change in existing personal particulars, she has submitted an application No.HY3074606415122 on 20/9/2022 with respondent No.2 with a request to re-issue of passport. Vide letter dtd. 21/11/2022, respondent No.2 informed the petitioner that it has received adverse police verification report, wherein it is mentioned that the petitioner is an accused in C.C. No.1138 of 2021 pending on the file of VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nmapally, Hyderabad arising out of Crime No.411 of 2020 for the offences under Ss. - 342, 323 and 506 read with 34 of IPC. Suppressing the same, the petitioner had submitted the aforesaid application. However, the petitioner herein had submitted explanation dtd. 24/11/2022 and also got issued legal notice dtd. 25/12/2022 to the said letter stating that he applied the aforesaid application through 'Rose Online Services', wherein he has informed the pendency of the aforesaid crime, but he has not mentioned while filling up the application. Further, the aforesaid crime is nothing but a counterblast to the criminal proceedings in C.C. No.1140 of 2022 initiated by the petitioner against one Mr. Abdul Feroz Khan and that she is no way concerned with the said crime and she was falsely implicated. The said explanation as well as legal notice was not considered by respondent No.2. 3. There is no dispute that the petitioner herein is an accused in the aforesaid C.C. No.1138 of 2021. On the ground of pendency of the aforesaid criminal case against the petitioner, respondent No.2 is not reissuing the passport to the petitioner. The said action of respondent No.2 is contrary to the procedure laid down under the Passports Act, 1967 and also the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu v. Central Bureau of Investigation,2020 Crl.L.J. (SC) 572. 4. The said action of respondent No.2 is contrary to the procedure laid down under the Passports Act, 1967 and also the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu v. Central Bureau of Investigation,2020 Crl.L.J. (SC) 572. 4. It is also relevant to note that the Apex Court in Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu (Supra) had an occasion to examine the provisions of the Passports Act, pendency of criminal cases and held that refusal of a passport can be only in case where an applicant is convicted during the period of five (05) years immediately preceding the date of application for an offence involving moral turpitude and sentence for imprisonment for not less than two years. Sec. 6.2 (f) relates to a situation where the applicant is facing trial in a criminal Court. The petitioner therein was convicted in a case for the offences under Ss. - 420, 468, 471 and 477A read with 120B of the IPC and also Sec. - 13 (2) read with Sec. 13 (1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Against which, an appeal was filed and the same was dismissed. The sentence was reduced to a period of one (01) year. The petitioner therein had approached the Apex Court by way of filing an appeal and the same is pending. Therefore, considering the said facts, the Apex Court held that Passport Authority cannot refuse renewal of the passport on the ground of pendency of the criminal appeal. Thus, the Apex Court directed the Passport Authority to renew the passport of the applicant without raising the objection relating to the pendency of the aforesaid criminal appeal in S.C. 5. In view of the above, mere pendency of criminal case is no ground to decline reissue of passport. Further, the petitioner is ready to co-operate with trial Court in concluding trial. She is standing on better footing than the petitioner in Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu (Supra). Therefore, the petitioner herein sought to issue necessary directions to respondent No.2 for re-issue of passport. 6. Thus, on the ground of pendency of the above criminal case, passport cannot be denied to the petitioner. 7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this writ petition is disposed of directing respondent No.2 to consider the aforesaid application No. HY3074606415122 dtd. 20/9/2022 submitted by the petitioner seeking reissue of passport on the following conditions as well as the explanation dtd. 7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this writ petition is disposed of directing respondent No.2 to consider the aforesaid application No. HY3074606415122 dtd. 20/9/2022 submitted by the petitioner seeking reissue of passport on the following conditions as well as the explanation dtd. 24/11/2022 submitted to the letter dtd. 21/11/2022, without reference to the pendency of the aforesaid criminal case: i) The petitioner herein shall submit an undertaking along with an affidavit before the learned VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad in C.C. No.1138 of 2021 stating that she shall not leave India during pendency of the said C.C. without permission of the Court and that she shall co-operate with the trial Court in concluding trial; ii) On filing such an undertaking as well as affidavit, the trial Court shall issue a certified copy of the same within two (02) weeks therefrom; iii) The petitioner herein shall submit the certified copy of this order along with the aforesaid undertaking before the Passport Officer/ Authority concerned for consideration of the aforesaid application to renewal passport; iv) On filing the said certified copies of order along with undertaking, the Passport Officer/Authority shall consider the same in the light of the observations made by this Court herein as well as the contents of the undertaking given by the petitioner for reissue of passport in accordance with law, within three (03) weeks; v) On re-issuance of Passport, the petitioner herein shall deposit the original Passport before the trial Court in C.C. No.1138 of 2021; and vi) However, liberty is granted to the petitioner herein to file an application before the learned Magistrate in the aforesaid C.C. seeking permission to travel abroad, and it is for the learned Magistrate to consider the same in accordance with law. However, there shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition shall also stand closed.