JUDGMENT SUREPALLI NANDA, J. - Heard Sri B. Chandrasen Reddy, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Sri K.V.V.Vedantha Chary, learned Central Government Counsel appearing for respondents. 2. This Writ Petition is filed to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct respondent No. 2 to release the Passport bearing No. S9246767 to the Petitioner forthwith. 3. The case of the Petitioner, in brief, is as follows: a) The Petitioner is a business man and got married to Smt. Haritha on 23/5/1991 and during the wedlock a son A. Sai Sreyash Reddy and daughter Manish were born and both the children are majors. Due to disputes between the petitioner and his wife, the petitioner's wife has left the matrimonial home along with the children in the year 1998. b) Subsequently, the petitioner filed Divorce OP and the same was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same the petitioner has filed FCA before this High Court and there are several other cases pending between the petitioner and his wife.The petitioner's son has filed a false complaint against the petitioner and the same was registered as FIR No.45 of 2018, dtd. 30/1/2018, and was charge sheeted vide CC.No.2745 of 2018 which is pending for trial. c) The petitioner is holding a valid passport vide No. S9246767, which had expired and the petitioner has applied for renewal. The 2nd Respondent has renewed and issued the passport valid from 18/1/2019 to 17/1/2029. Consequently, the respondents have issued letter dtd. 31/1/2019 to the petitioner seeking clarification with regard to the pendency of the Crime against the petitioner and sought for explanation. Further the 2nd respondent also insisted the petitioner to surrender the passport, the petitioner has complied with the instructions and accordingly surrendered his passport. d) The 2nd respondent issued the surrendered certificate dtd. 14/12/2019, but the 2nd respondent has recorded the reasons for surrender of passport as "Surrender of Ordinary Passports in lieu of obtaining Diplomatic/Official passports" and the petitioner herein is a business man and not a government employee or member of parliament or judicial officer etc., to obtain diplomatic/official passport. Nevertheless, the petitioner was informed that, before traveling abroad he has to take permission from the concerned jurisdictional court as per the circular issued by the Central Government. Nevertheless, the petitioner was informed that, before traveling abroad he has to take permission from the concerned jurisdictional court as per the circular issued by the Central Government. e) However, the petitioner is now intending to visit his sisters who are residing in America and the petitioner has approached the respondent authorities for release of passport. It was orally informed to the petitioner by the respondent authorities that the passport will be released only if the petitioner obtains permission from this court as the criminal case is still pending. f) It is pertinent to mention here that as per clause 2(a) the passport can be issued to every such citizen for a specified period of time as per the order of the court and if no such time period is specified the passport should be issued for a period of one year. g) Therefore, keeping the passport of the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and against the settled principles of law. Petitioner places reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in, Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu vs CBI, Criminal Appeal No. 1342/2017 (Same has been extracted below). Hence, this Writ Petition. 4. Counter Affidavit filed by Respondent No. 1 and 2, in brief, is as under: a) The respondents' office had received an adverse police verification report dtd. 28/1/2019 stating that the petitioner is involved in criminal case CR No. 45/18 u/s 443, 323, 354, R/W 341, vide CC No. 274/18 PT and immediately, the respondent office has issued a show cause notice vide no. SCN/308183681/19 dtd. 31/1/2019 to furnish explanation regarding suppression of CC No. 274/18 and to impound the passport number S9246767 dtd. 18/1/2019, as per Passports Act, 1967. b) The petitioner through letter dtd. 14/2/2019, responded to the show-cause notice dtd. 31/1/2019 by furnishing explanation letter and surrendered the Passport bearing No. S9246767 on 18/1/2019. Thereafter, the respondent office has issued the Surrender Certificate dtd. 14/2/2019 to the petitioner and in this certificate inadvertently it is mentioned as "Surrender of Ordinary passports in lieu of obtaining Diplomatic/official passports" as it was computer generated. c) In exercise of powers conferred under Sec. 22 of the Passport Act 1967 the Central Government had issued Gazette notification vide G.S.R. 570(E) dtd. 25/8/1993, exempting the cases of the applicants against whom criminal cases are pending before criminal courts in India, from the operation of the provisions of Clause (f) of sub-sec. c) In exercise of powers conferred under Sec. 22 of the Passport Act 1967 the Central Government had issued Gazette notification vide G.S.R. 570(E) dtd. 25/8/1993, exempting the cases of the applicants against whom criminal cases are pending before criminal courts in India, from the operation of the provisions of Clause (f) of sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 6 of the Passport Act 1967, provided those applicants either submit acquittal order or order permitting travel abroad by the Hon'ble Court where the criminal case is still pending. d) Therefore, the respondents' office can release the petitioner's passport, if he submits acquittal order from the case or obtain permission to travel abroad from the court where the criminal case is still pending. Hence, the Writ Petition is without merits and is liable to be dismissed. PERUSED THE RECORD 5. The counter affidavit filed by the respondents, in particular, paras 6, 8, 9 and 10 reads as under: 6. It is humbly submitted that this office issued a Show Cause notice vide the SCN/308183681/19 dt. 31/1/2019 to furnish explanation regarding suppression of CR No. 45/18 u/s 443, 323, 354, R/W 341/of Chaitanyapuri PS vide CC No. 274/18 and also states why action should not be taken for suppressing material information and to impound the passport number S9246767 dt. 18/1/2019, as per Passports Act, 1967. 8. It is submitted that on surrender of the Passport No. $9246767 D/ 18/1/2019 by the applicant/petitioner vide letter dt. 14/2/2019 and this office issued the Surrender Certificate dt. 14/2/2019 to the applicant/petitioner. It is further submitted that in this certificate inadvertently mentioned as "Surrender of Ordinary passports in lieu of obtaining Diplomatic/official passports" as it was computer generated." 9. It is respectfully submitted that in exercise of powers conferred under Sec. 22 of the Passport Act, 1967 the Central Government had issued Gazette notification vide G.S.R.570(E) Dt/25/8/1993, exempting the cases of the applicants against whom criminal cases are pending before criminal Courts in India, from the operation of the provisions of Clause (f) of Subsec. (2) of Sec. 6 of the Passport Act, 1967, provided those applicants either submit acquittal order or order permitting them to travel abroad by the Hon'ble Court where the criminal case is still pending. 10. It is submitted that this office can release the passport bearing No.S9246767, dtd. (2) of Sec. 6 of the Passport Act, 1967, provided those applicants either submit acquittal order or order permitting them to travel abroad by the Hon'ble Court where the criminal case is still pending. 10. It is submitted that this office can release the passport bearing No.S9246767, dtd. 18/1/2019 to the petitioner, if he submits acquittal order from the case or obtain permission to travel abroad from the Hon'ble Court where the criminal case is still pending." 6. The relevant provision Sec. 6 of the Passport Act, 1967 dealing with Refusal of Passports, travel documents etc. Clauses 3, e, f and g read as under: 3 (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;" DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION DISCUSSION : 7. It is the specific case of the Petitioner that the Petitioner is a businessman and Petitioner's son had filed a false complaint against the Petitioner and the same was registered as FIR No.45 of 2018, dt. 30/1/2018 U/s. 448, 323, 290, 354, r/w 34 of IPC on the file of PS Chaitanyapuri and the same was charge sheeted vide CC No.2745/2018 on the file of VI Addl. Metorpolitan Magistrate - cum - JFCM Special (Mobile) VI Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar, and the same is pending for trial and the Petitioner applied for renewal of passport taking assistance of passport agents and obtained a passport which is valid from 18/1/2019 till 17/1/2029. While so, the Petitioner received the proceedings dt. 31/1/2019 calling upon the Petitioner to furnish explanation as to why the Petitioner has suppressed the material information in his passport application and obtained the said passport, the suppression referred to Petitioner's involvement in Cr.No.45/2018, dtd. 30/1/2018. While so, the Petitioner received the proceedings dt. 31/1/2019 calling upon the Petitioner to furnish explanation as to why the Petitioner has suppressed the material information in his passport application and obtained the said passport, the suppression referred to Petitioner's involvement in Cr.No.45/2018, dtd. 30/1/2018. The Petitioner again received instructions from the 2nd Respondent to surrender Petitioner's passport and accordingly Petitioner surrendered the passport. When the Petitioner intended to visit his sisters who are residing in America since several years and requested for release of passport, the 2nd Respondent informed the Petitioner to obtain permission from the Court. Aggrieved by the same Petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking a direction to the 2nd Respondent to release the passport bearing No.S9246767 forthwith to the Petitioner. 8. Counter affidavit has been filed by the Respondents No.1 and 2 and it is mainly contended that Petitioner indulged in suppression of material facts and therefore the Petitioner was called upon to surrender his passport and accordingly on surrender of the passport by the Petitioner on 14/2/2019 to the 2nd Respondent herein a certificate was also issued to the Petitioner, but inadvertently it is mentioned in the said surrender certificate the said surrender of ordinary passport in lieu of obtaining diplomatic/official passport and further the Petitioner should obtain an acquittal order or order permitting travel abroad by the Court where the criminal case is still pending. CONCLUSION : 9. The Apex Court in the judgment reported in 2013 (15) SCC page 570 in Sumit Mehta v State of NCT of Delhi at para 13 observed as under: "The law presumes an accused to be innocent till his guilt is proved. As a presumable innocent person, he is entitled to all the fundamental rights including the right to liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India." 10. The Apex Court in Menaka Gandhi vs. Union of India reported in 1978 (1) SCC 248 , held that no person can be deprived of his right to go abroad unless there is a law enabling the State to do so and such law contains fair, reasonable and just procedure. The Apex Court in Menaka Gandhi vs. Union of India reported in 1978 (1) SCC 248 , held that no person can be deprived of his right to go abroad unless there is a law enabling the State to do so and such law contains fair, reasonable and just procedure. Para 5 of the said judgment is relevant and the same is extracted below: "Thus, no person can be deprived of his right to, go abroad unless there is a law made by the State prescribing the procedure for so depriving him and the deprivation is effected strictly in accordance with such procedure. It was for this reason, in order to comply with the requirement of Article 21, that Parliament enacted the Passports Act, 1967 for regulating the tight to go abroad. It is clear from the provisions of the Passports, Act, 1967 that is lays down the circumstances under which a passport may be issued or refused or cancelled or impounded and also prescribes a procedure for doing so, but the question is whether that is sufficient compliance with Article 21. Is the prescription of some sort of procedure enough or must the procedure comply with any particular requirements? Obviously, procedure cannot be arbitrary, unfair or unreasonable. This indeed was conceded by the learned Attorney General who with his usual candour frankly stated that it was not possible for him to contend that any procedure howsoever arbitrary, oppressive or unjust may be prescribed by the law. Therefore, such a right to travel abroad cannot be deprived except by just, fair and reasonable procedure. 11. Referring to the said principle and also the principles laid down by the Apex Court in several other judgments, considering the guidelines issued by the Union of India from time to time, the Division Bench of High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Noor Paul Vs. Union of India reported in 2022 SCC online P & H 1176 held that a right to travel abroad cannot be deprived except by just, fair and reasonable procedure. 12. The Division Bench of the Apex Court in its judgment dtd. Union of India reported in 2022 SCC online P & H 1176 held that a right to travel abroad cannot be deprived except by just, fair and reasonable procedure. 12. The Division Bench of the Apex Court in its judgment dtd. 9/4/2019 reported in LAWS (SC)2019-4-203 in Satish Chandra Verma v Union of India (UOI) and others at para 4 observed as under: "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 which are the basic humanities which can be affected through refusal of freedom to go abroad and this freedom is a genuine human right." 13. This Court opines that freedom to go abroad has much social value and represents the basic human right of great significance. A bare perusal of Sec. 6 of the Passport Act, 1967 dealing with Refusal of Passports, travel documents etc. Clauses 3, e, f and g (referred to and extracted above), clearly indicate that the Petitioner's case does not fall U/s.6(e) or (g) and it falls under (f). This Court opines that the passport authority cannot refuse the delivery and release of passport to the Petitioner which is in the custody of the 2nd Respondent herein on the ground of Sec.6(f) of the Passports Act, 1967 i.e on the ground of pendency of criminal case registered against the Petitioner herein. 14. Taking into consideration all the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and the law laid down by the Apex Court in the judgments referred to and discussed above (1) Menaka Gandhi v Union of India reported in 1978 (1) SCC 248 , (2) Judgment dtd. 9/4/2019 of the Apex Court in LAWS (SC)2019-4-203 in Satish Chandra Verma v Union of India (UOI), and (3) The Judgment of Division Bench of High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Noor Paul Vs. 9/4/2019 of the Apex Court in LAWS (SC)2019-4-203 in Satish Chandra Verma v Union of India (UOI), and (3) The Judgment of Division Bench of High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Noor Paul Vs. Union of India reported in 2022 SCC online P & H 1176, (4) Judgment of the Apex Court reported in 2013 (15) SCC page 570 in Sumit Mehta v State of NCT of Delhi and duly considering the fact that freedom to go abroad has much social value and represents the basic human right of great significance, the Respondent No.2 is directed to release the passport of the Petitioner bearing No.S9246767 which is in the custody of the 2nd respondent since 14/2/2019 the petitioner having surrendered the same as per the directions of the 2nd respondent on 14/2/2019, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of the copy of the order duly taking into consideration the observations of the Apex Court in the judgments referred to and discussed above without relating it to the pendency of the criminal case registered against the Petitioner in Crime No.45/2018. 15. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, shall stand closed.