JUDGMENT : Ranjan Sharma, J. 1. During the pendency of Criminal Revision No.25 of 2015, the Petitioner [Amarnath], has filed the instant application {Cr. MP No. 381 of 2025}, under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [in short “BNSS”] against non-issuance of passport and for seeking permission from this Court for issuance of passport, pending with Respondent No. 2 with file SM4060584016625 dated 09.01.2025 Annexure P-1, which was denied/withheld, on the plea that as per the police verification report, the case originating from FIR No 119/04 dated 19.12.2004 under Sections 279 & 337 IPC, registered at PS Bangana, is under trial. 2. Instant application [Cr. MP No. 381 of 2025] has been filed, seeking a direction, for issuance of a passport for enabling the petitioner to visit abroad {i.e. Australia}. 3. Upon listing of this application, notice was issued by this Court on 31.01.2025, directing respondents to file reply to instant application. 4. Upon listing of this case, today [14.02.2025], Respondent No.2- Regional Passport Authorities, Shimla has filed a Short Reply Affidavit dated 06.02.2025 [Taken on Record], stating that though petitioner had applied for issuance of Fresh Passport, at Post Office Passport Seva Kendra [POPSK], Hamirpur on 09.01.2025 and in response thereto, Pre-Police Verification was undertaken on which Superintendent of Police, District Hamirpur had submitted an adverse police verification report on 10.01.2025 with the remarks that “Case FIR No. 119/04 dated 19.12.2004 under Sections 279 & 337 IPC, registered at PS Bangana and the case is under trial” which is Annexure R-2. However, the Reply Affidavit indicates that as per the Government of India, Gazette Notification No. G.S.R. 570 (E) dated 25.08.1993 [Annexure R-1], the Court orders are required for issuance of passport before departing from India and the petitioner was issued a notice on 16.1.2025 to submit the necessary permission from the Court, if the case was pending in a Court. 5. Learned State Counsel states that the matter to issue or the deny passport relates to the Respondent No 2-Passport Authorities and the State has no role, except than to undertake the pre-verification/verification process, which was done by the Superintendent of Police concerned and therefore, no formal reply is required to be filed by State Authorities in the instant matter. 6. Heard. Ms. Sheetal Vyas, Advocate for petitioner, Mr. Vishal Panwar, Learned Additional Advocate General for Respondent No.1-State and Mr. 6. Heard. Ms. Sheetal Vyas, Advocate for petitioner, Mr. Vishal Panwar, Learned Additional Advocate General for Respondent No.1-State and Mr. Rajinder Thakur, Central Government Standing Counsel for Respondent No.2. 7. LEGAL POSITION - Before proceeding to examine the claim of the petitioner, it is relevant to have a recap of the statutory provisions of Section 6 and Section 22 of the Passports Act, which reads as under: “5. Applications for passports, travel documents, etc., and orders thereon:- (1) …not relevant.. (2) On receipt of an application 3 [under this section], the passport authority, after making such inquiry, if any. as it may consider necessary, shall, subject to the other provisions of this Act, by order in writing – (a)-(b). …not relevant .. (c) refuse to issue the passport or travel document or, as the case may be, refuse to make on the passport or travel document any endorsement. 6. Refusal of passports, travel documents, etc.— (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. (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. 22. 22. Power to exempt:- Where the Central Government is of the opinion that it is necessary or expedient in the public interest so to do, it may, by notification in the Official Gazette and subject to such conditions, if any, as it may specify in the notification,- (a) exempt any person or class of persons from the operation of all or any of the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder; and (b) as often as may be, cancel any such notification and again subject, by a like notification, the person or class of persons to the operation of such provisions.” (i) In the backdrop of Section 22 of the Passports Act, the Central Government has issued a Notification on 25.08.1993 [Annexure R-1], providing that a citizen is entitled to exemption from the rigors of Section 6(2)(f) against whom proceedings in respect of alleged offence are pending, before a Criminal Court, on production of orders of Court, for issuance or renewal of passport so as to go abroad, which reads as under: “MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS NOTIFICATION New Delhi, the 25th August, 1993 G.S.R. 570(E).—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of Section 22 of the Passports Act 1967 [15 of 1967] and in supersession of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of External Affairs No. G.S.R. 298(E), dated the 14th April, 1976, the Central Government, being of the opinion that it is necessary in public interest to do so, hereby exempts citizens of India against whom proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by them are pending before a criminal court in India and who produce orders from the court concerned permitting them to depart from India, from the operation of the provisions of Clause (f) of sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the said Act, subject to the following conditions, namely :- (a) the passport to be issued to every such citizen shall be issued- (i) for the period specified in order of the court referred to above, if the court specifies a period for which the passport has to be issued; or (ii) if no period either for the issue of the passport or for the travel abroad is specified in such order, the passport shall be issued for a period one year; (iii) if such order gives permission to travel abroad for a period less than one year, but does not specify the period validity of the passport, the passport shall be issued for one year; or (b) any passport issued in terms of (a) (ii)and (a) (iii) above can be further renewed for one year at a time, provided the applicant has not travelled abroad for the period sanctioned by the court; and provided further that, in the meantime, the order of the court is not cancelled or modified; (c) any passport issued in terms of (a) (i)above can be further renewed only on the basis of a fresh court order specifying a further period of validity of the passport or specifying a period for travel abroad; (d) the said citizen shall give an undertaking in writing to the passport issuing authority that he shall, if required by the court concerned, appear before it at any time during the continuance in force of the passport so issued. [No.VI|401|37|79] Sd/- L.K. Ponappa, Jt. Secy, (CPV)” (ii) The issue regarding rights of the Passport Authorities, to withhold the issuance or renewal of the passport, so as to prevent a person from travelling abroad will certainly affect him prejudicially and such action amounts to depriving a person of his personal liberty, and would be offending Article 14 of the Constitution of India, has been mandated by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D. Ramarathnam, Assistant Passport Officer, New Delhi and Others, AIR 1967 SC 1836 , in the following terms:- “32. For the reasons mentioned above we would accept the view of Kerala, Bombay and Mysore High Courts in preference to that expressed by the Delhi High Court. It follows that under Art. 21 of the Constitution no person can be deprived of his right to travel except according to procedure established by law. It is not disputed that no law was made by the State regulating or depriving persons of such a right. 33. The next question is whether the act of the respondents in refusing to issue the passport infringes the petitioner's fundamental right under Art. 14 of the Constitution. Article 14 says that the State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India. This doctrine of equality before the law is a necessary corollary to the high concept of the rule of law accepted by our Constitution. One of the aspects of rule of law is that every executive action, if it is to operate to the prejudice of any person, must be supported by some legislative authority. Secondly, such a law would be void, if it discriminates or enables an authority to discriminate between persons without just classification. What a legislature could not do, the executive could not obviously do. But in the present case the executive claims a right to issue a passport at its discretion; that is to say, it can at its discretion prevent a person from leaving India on foreign travel. Whether the right to travel is part of personal liberty or not within the meaning of Art. 21 of the Constitution, such an arbitrary prevention of a person from travelling abroad will certainly affect him prejudicially. A person may like to go abroad for many reasons. Whether the right to travel is part of personal liberty or not within the meaning of Art. 21 of the Constitution, such an arbitrary prevention of a person from travelling abroad will certainly affect him prejudicially. A person may like to go abroad for many reasons. He may like to see the world, to study abroad, to undergo medical treatment that is not available in our country, to collaborate in scientific research, to develop his mental horizon in different fields and such others. An executive arbitrariness can prevent one from doing so and permit another to travel merely for pleasure. While in the case of enacted law one knows where he stands, in the case of unchannelled arbitrary discretion, discrimination is writ large on the face of it. Such a discretion patently violates the doctrine of equality, for the difference in the treatment of persons rests solely on the arbitrary selection of the executive. The argument that the said discretionary power of the State is a political or a diplomatic one does not make it anytheless an executive power. We, therefore, hold that the order refusing to issue the passport to the petitioner offends Art. 14 of the Constitution.” (iii) Right to hold passport and to travel abroad thereunder has been recognised as a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the right to issue, refuse, cancel or impound the passport can only be resorted to under the Passports Act, in accordance with procedure therein, which cannot be oppressive, unjust or arbitrary, as per the mandate of Honble Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India, 1978 (1) SCC 248 , in the following terms: “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 right 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. 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.” (iv) In Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, Cr. Appeal No. 1342 of 2017 decided on 27.09.2021, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has mandated the passport authorities to issue/renew the passport of the petitioner therein, without raising objection relating to the pendency of criminal appeal in the matter. The operative part of the judgment reads :- “The applicant was convicted for offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 420, 468, 471, 477-A of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The appeal filed by him was dismissed by the High Court. However, the sentence was reduced to a period of one year. The application for exemption from surrendering filed by the applicant was allowed. Leave was granted in the criminal appeal filed by the applicant on 12.07.2017. The appeal is pending consideration. In the meanwhile, the applicant has filed this application for a direction to the respondent to give no objection for renewal of his passport which expired on 12.11.2017. The applicant has contended that the application filed by him for renewal of passport was not considered. In spite of his repeated efforts, including filing of an application under the Right to Information Act, he was not informed the reason for non renewal of his passport. It is averred in the application filed for direction that the application was orally informed that the renewal of the passport was not being done due to the pendency of the criminal appeal in this Court. Mr. J.K. Sud, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the respondent oppose the application and submitted that renewal of passport can be only after application obtains permission from the concerned trial court. Mr. J.K. Sud, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the respondent oppose the application and submitted that renewal of passport can be only after application obtains permission from the concerned trial court. He referred to Section 6.2 of the Passport Act, 1967 and argued that the passport authority has the power to refuse issuance of the passport in view of the pendency of the criminal appeal filed by him. He submitted that sub-Section 6.2 (e) and (f) of the Passport Act, 1967 would be applicable to this case and the applicant is not entitled to seek renewal passport without obtaining permission from the trial court. Section 6.2 (f) relates to a situation where the applicant is facing trial in a criminal court. Admittedly, at present, the conviction of the appellant stands still the disposal of the criminal appeal. The sentence which he has to undergo is for a period of one year. The passport authority cannot refuse the renewal of the passport on the ground of pendency of the criminal appeal. The passport authority is directed to renew the passport of the applicant without raising the objection relating to the pendency of the criminal appeal in this Court. Subject to the other conditions being fulfilled, the Interlocutory Application stands disposed of.” (v) In Satish Chandra Verma vs. Union of India & Others, 2019 SCC Online SC 2048, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, held that the right to travel and the freedom to go abroad is an important-basic human right including right to livelihood under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and such a right cannot be curtailed in an oppressive manner. Para 5 of the judgment reads 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.” (vi) Even the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, in Noor Paul vs. Union of India, 2022 SCC Online P&H 1176, has reiterated the aforesaid principle. (vii) In addition to this, the Karnataka High Court in Krishna Chiranjeevi Rao Palukuri Venkata vs. Union of India, 2020 SCC OnLine Kar 3437, directed the Passport Authorities to renew the passport, which was denied due to mere pendency of criminal case, after taking into account Section 6(2)(f) and the GSR dated 25.08.1993. (viii) In Hardik Shah vs Union of India, 2021 SCC OnLine MP 2326, similar directions were issued to renew passport in view of the Passport Act and the Circular even though the criminal case was registered and pending, in following terms :- “13. In the instant case, petitioner is seeking for renewal for his passport, therefore, said request cannot be rejected by taking shelter under Section 6(2)(f) of the Act and Notification bearing No. G.S.R 570 (E) dated 25.8.1993 issued by the Ministry External Affairs, Government of India. 14. The submission of the learned ASG that the petitioner can obtain Emergency Certificate to travel to India cannot be accepted for the reason that part-II to the Schedule-II of the Passport Rules that provides for issuing Emergency Certificate is not applicable to the petitioner. It only applies to classes of persons listed in the said Schedule. Petitioner does not fall in any of the classes of persons listed in the said schedule. It is also a fact, that the petitioner's passport has not been refused and also not impounded or revoked. Hence, the Rules providing for obtaining Emergency Certificate is not applicable to the petitioner's case. 15. The Apex Court in the case of Satwant Singh Sawhney supra, has held that under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, no person can be deprived of his right to travel except according to procedure established by law. Hence, Petitioner's right to travel cannot be curtailed on the pretext that a criminal case is pending against him by refusing to renew his passport. 16. The Apex Court in the case Suresh Nanda - vs- CBI supra has held that despite criminal case filed against the petitioner therein he was entitled to hold the passport since the passport had not been impounded in accordance with law. Hence, merely because a criminal case is pending against the Petitioner, he cannot be disqualified from holding a passport, when admittedly his passport has not been impounded under Section 10 (3) of the Passport Act. 17. Hence, merely because a criminal case is pending against the Petitioner, he cannot be disqualified from holding a passport, when admittedly his passport has not been impounded under Section 10 (3) of the Passport Act. 17. The Respondents have not produced any document to establish that the Petitioner was served with summons issued by the Jurisdictional Magistrate or having been issued with any notices by the Authorities informing him about the pendency of criminal case against him. Hence, the Petitioner cannot be held guilty of suppressing the fact that he did not disclose the pendency of criminal case at the time of renewal of his passport in 2010. 18. The offences alleged against the Petitioner are not punishable with death or life imprisonment. Petitioner has filed an affidavit stating that he may put on terms for renewal of his passport. In his affidavit, he has stated that he would enter appearance in C.C.No.1503/2019 (RCNo.2(E)/ 2005 pending before the Hon'ble XXI Additional Chief Metropolitan, Magistrate, Hyderabad subject to Respondents 1 to 3 renewing his passport. 19. For the aforesaid discussion , I am of the view that the Petitioner is entitled for renewal of his passport for a limited period subject to certain terms and conditions. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i) Writ Petition is allowed. ii) Respondents 1 to 3 keeping in view the observations made in this order are hereby directed to renew the Petitioner's passport bearing No. No. J2032048 for a period of nine months from the date of renewal subject to the condition that petitioner furnishes bank guarantee for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-. iii) Petitioner is hereby directed to enter appearance in C.C.No.1503/2019 (RCNo. 2(E)/2005 pending before the Hon'ble XXI Additional Chief Metropolitan, Magistrate, Hyderabad within six months from the date of renewal of his passport failing which the Respondents 1 to 3 are at liberty to cancel the renewal of passport of the Petitioner and also encash the bank guarantee furnished by the Petitioner.” (ix) In Ankam Balaiah vs The Union of India, Writ Petition No. 1807 of 2024 dated 31.03.2024, the High Court of Telangana mandated that a right of a person to seek renewal of a Passport, so as to go abroad cannot be curtailed or taken away arbitrarily. Even, the right to go abroad has social values and represents the basic human right of great significance and such a right, cannot be denied merely due to the pendency of a criminal case unless a person is convicted in aforesaid proceedings, which reads as under :- “10. In view of the above, this Court opines that mere pendency of criminal case is not a ground to decline renewal of passport. Further, the petitioner is ready to co- operate with the trial Court in concluding trial. Therefore, the petitioner herein sought issuance of necessary directions to respondent No.2 for consideration of the application of the petitioner for renewal of passport. Thus, on the ground of pendency of the above criminal case, passport cannot be denied to the petitioner.” (x) In Minhajuddin Qazi Mohammed vs. Union of India, WP No. 7505 of 2024 decided on 26.03.2024, the High Court deprecated the non-issuance/renewal of passport, due to the pendency of criminal case despite the exemption mandated under Section 6(2)(f) and Section 22 of the Act and the GSR dated 25.08.1993, as under :- “16. In view of the above, this Court opines that mere pendency of criminal cases is not a ground to refuse re-issuance/renewal of passport which was earlier issued to the petitioner for a period ten years from 09.06. 2016 to 08.06.2026 which was however lost by the petitioner. Further, the petitioner is ready to co-operate with the trial Court in concluding trial. Therefore, the petitioner herein sought release of passport by issuing necessary directions to respondents for consideration of the present application filed by the petitioner dated 04.03.2024 seeking re-issuance of petitioner’s passport No. P 3035978 for a period of ten (10) years without reference to criminal cases registered and pending against the petitioner. 17. Therefore, the petitioner herein sought release of passport by issuing necessary directions to respondents for consideration of the present application filed by the petitioner dated 04.03.2024 seeking re-issuance of petitioner’s passport No. P 3035978 for a period of ten (10) years without reference to criminal cases registered and pending against the petitioner. 17. In the light of the discussion as arrived at as above and duly considering the view and observations of the Apex Court and other High Courts in the Judgments referred to and extracted above, this Court opines that mere pendency of criminal cases registered against the petitioner cannot be a ground to decline reissuance/renewal of passport of the petitioner which was earlier issued for a period of ten years i.e., from 09.06.2016 to 08.06.2026 and further, duly considering the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is ready to co- operate with the trial Court in concluding the trial, hence on the ground of pendency of the criminal case or cases reissuance/ renewal of passport cannot be denied to the petitioner by Respondent No.2 herein.” ANALYSIS 8. Taking into account the entirety of the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered view, that the instant application [Cr.MP No. 381 of 2025], seeking a direction to Respondent No.2- Regional Passport Authorities to issue/renew the passport of the petitioner [Amarnath], deserves to be allowed, for the following reasons:- (i) Material on record supports the claim of the petitioner in the instant case, for the reason that an FIR was registered against the petitioner i.e. FIR No. 119/04 dated 19.12.2004 under Sections 279, 337 & 304-A of IPC registered at PS Bangana, District Una. Upon trial, petitioner was convicted by Trial Court i.e. Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, District Una (H.P), in Criminal Case No. 44-I-2005/28-II-05 in terms of the judgement of conviction dated 11.10.2012 and sentence dated 12.10.2012, mandating the petitioner to undergo Simple Imprisonment till rising of Court for one month and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- under Section 279 IPC and in default of payment of fine to further undergo Simple Imprisonment till rising of the Court and was mandated to undergo Simple Imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default payment of fine to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one month under Section 304-A of IPC. 1000/- under Section 279 IPC and in default of payment of fine to further undergo Simple Imprisonment till rising of the Court and was mandated to undergo Simple Imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default payment of fine to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one month under Section 304-A of IPC. Feeling aggrieved, the applicant-accused filed a Criminal Appeal No. 25/2012, wherein, vide judgment dated 02.01.2015, Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Una (H.P.) upheld the conviction and sentence. In this background, it is submitted that the petitioner applied for issuance of passport on 09.01.2025 and a period of more than 9 years had elapsed since date of conviction by Learned Trial Court on 11.10.2012 and its affirmation by the Learned Appellate Court on 02.01.2015 and the Cr revision against the aforesaid judgements are pending as on the date the petitioner applied for issuance of passport i.e. on 09.01.2025 as aforesaid. Perusal of the judgment reveals that petitioner in terms of the aforesaid judgments has been inflicted with sentence, which is admittedly less than two years. In these circumstances, the denial or withholding or non-issuance of passport of the petitioner is contrary to Clause (e) to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Passport Act. (ii) Mere pendency of Criminal Revision [Cr. Rev No.25 of 2015], against the Impugned Judgments dated 11.10.2012 and its affirmation on dated 02.01.2015 by Learned Trial Court and Learned Appellate Court, shall not stand in the way of the Respondent No.2- Regional Passport Authorities in issuing the passport of the petitioner, when, the case of the petitioner does not falls within any of the ouster Clauses (b) & (c) of Sub- section (2) of Section 5 and when, no reasons have been conveyed refusing the same and when, nothing cogent and convincing has been placed on record nor does it exists that due to the non-issuance of passport and travel document the sovereignty and integrity, security and friendly relations. In absence of all or any of these situations, certainty goes to show that the non- issuance of passport to the petitioner is vitiated by non- application of mind and is dehors the pre-requisites of Section 5(2)(b)(c) of the Act, supra. In absence of all or any of these situations, certainty goes to show that the non- issuance of passport to the petitioner is vitiated by non- application of mind and is dehors the pre-requisites of Section 5(2)(b)(c) of the Act, supra. (iii) Now coming to the mandate of G.S.R. 570 (E) dated 25.08.1993 [Annexure R-1], with Reply Affidavit, this Court, is of the considered view, that the intent and object of the G.S.R. 570 (E), leaving it open for the Court, to direct/permit the issuance of passport and to depart abroad is to be tested and examine in the light of the fundamental rights available to a person to go abroad for variety of reasons as in this case. Petitioner [Amarnath], as per the application, intents to go abroad [i.e. Australia] for meeting his niece. Right to hold passport and to go abroad is a basic human right and an attempt to deprive or curtail such a right shall certainly tantamount to violating the human dignity and personal liberty as mandated in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Thus, in order to give effect to basic human right and to uphold the dignity and personal liberty, the object and context of G.S.R. 570 (E) needs to be reinforced in facts of instant case. (iv) In a similar situation, in Cr. MMO No. 215 of 2024, in Re Ankush Mehta Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh decided on 24.05.2024, whereby, this Court directed the Passport Authorities to renew the passport in view of Section 6 and Section 22 of Act and GSR No. 570 (E) dated 25.08.1993, the ratio thereof mutatis mutandis applies to instant case also. MMO No. 215 of 2024, in Re Ankush Mehta Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh decided on 24.05.2024, whereby, this Court directed the Passport Authorities to renew the passport in view of Section 6 and Section 22 of Act and GSR No. 570 (E) dated 25.08.1993, the ratio thereof mutatis mutandis applies to instant case also. (v) In the backdrop of statutory provisions and the mandate of law as referred to above, this Court is of the considered view that the action of the Respondent No.2, Passport Authorities in not issuing the passport of the petitioner, in the context of to the prayer made in the instant application CrMP No.381 of 2025], does not satisfy the test of judicial scrutiny, for the following reasons; firstly, the non-issuance of passport, without giving a personal hearing to petitioner speaks of arbitrariness and unreasonableness; and secondly, the non-issuance of passport without disclosing reasons amounts to depriving the petitioner of his right to know the grounds points towards the unfairness in action; and thirdly, the right of a person to acquire passport and the right to travel abroad is an important basic human right and deprivation of such right cannot be permitted to operate in an arbitrary, unjust and oppressive manner, as in this case; and fourthly, the right to seek issuance or renewal of passport is based on Section 6(2)(e) of the Passports Act mandating that if five years have elapsed from date of conviction for offences imposing sentence for less than two years then such a sentence or stigma will not come in the way of a citizen for seeking and allowing issuance or renewal of passport to go abroad and action of respondents in non-issuance of passport of petitioner is illegal and fifthly, the non-issuance of passport to the petitioner amounts to curtailing, depriving or taking away the fundamental right of the petitioner under Article 21 of the Constitution of India; and sixthly, even the non- issuance of passport to the petitioner amounts to rendering the object and rationale behind Section 6(2)(e) read with Section 22 and the GSR No.570 dated 25.08.1993, redundant, nugatory and inoperative when, the sentence has not attained finality and the Cr Revision is pending; and seventhly, the State Authorities or Passport Authorities have not pointed out any adversarial circumstances that issuance of passport and right to go abroad will prejudice the security of the State then, non-issuance- renewal is arbitrary; and eighthly, the right of issuance and renewal of passport and the right to go abroad covers within its ambit the right to earn livelihood and to live with human dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the inaction of the Respondents in withholding or denying renewal of passport, without there being any cogent material is certainly oppressive, arbitrary and dehors the spirit of Article 21 of the Constitution of India; and ninthly, as per the mandate of law in Satwant Singh Sawhney, Maneka Gandhi and Satish Chand Verma (supra), the right to get the passport and travel abroad being a basic human right and part of personal liberty cannot be restricted or curtailed or denied without any authority of law and tenthly, even the pendency of an appeal or revision cannot be a ground to deny the issuance of passport, when, in instant case, the Criminal Revision is pending, in which the substantive sentence stands stayed by this Court since 16.1.2015 till day; and lastly, non-issuance of passport is contrary to law in Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu’s case and non-issuance or withholding amounts to penalizing the petitioner on the basis of non-existent grounds, dehors the statute and the action of the passport authorities amounts to improper exercise of discretion, by acting dehors the spirit of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and the mandate of Section 6(e) at Section 22 and GSR dated 25.08.1993 supra, to the prejudice of the petitioner. CONCLUSION AND DIRECTION 9. In view of the above discussion and for the reasons recorded hereinabove, the instant application [Cr. MP No. 381 of 2025] is allowed; in the following terms:- (i) Respondents including the Respondent No.2-Passport Authorities, are directed to issue the passport to the petitioner by completing all required formalities, in accordance with law expeditiously, and not later than one month from today; (ii) Pendency [Cr. Revision No.25/2015], assailing Impugned Judgments, assailing the conviction and sentence which stand stayed in terms of orders dated 16.01.2015, shall not come in the way of Respondents ; who shall issuance the passport and travel document [if issued thereafter] subject to observance of following conditions, by the petitioner :- (i) Petitioner shall furnish a personal bond amounting to Rs. 75,000/- {Rs Seventy Five Thousand} with one local surety in like amount to the satisfaction of Trial Court concerned, before proceeding abroad, after renewal of passport; (ii) Petitioner shall disclose his functional E-mail Id and that of his surety to the Trial Court, before proceeding abroad, after renewal of passport; (iii) Petitioner shall furnish his office/residential address within a week of his reaching abroad; (iv) Petitioner shall furnish the change in E-mail Id or Address to the Trial Court as in (ii) & (iii) above; (v) In case, the petitioner involves himself in any criminal offence or abets the commission of offence in India then, this concession here-in-above shall cease automatically. (vi) State Authorities are free to seek modification or cancellation of this Order, in case, the petitioner violates any conditions imposed thereafter; (vii) Learned Trial Court may impose any other conditions, in-adddition to the conditions contained hereinabove, to secure the ends of justice. 10. In aforesaid terms, the instant application shall stand disposed of.