Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2026 DIGILAW 127 (GUJ)

Samirbhai Nalinbhai Patel v. Union Of India

2026-03-02

ANIRUDDHA P.MAYEE

body2026
ORDER : ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE, J. 1. Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. Pradip D. Bhate, learned advocate waives service of rule for the respondents. 2. It is submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner that the petitioner has been arraigned as an accused in 3 FIRs arising out of the same set of facts and transaction being (i) CR-I No. 11192018220218 of 2022 dated 26.07.2022 registered at Dhandhuka Police Station, Ahmedabad (Rural), (ii) CR-I No. 11190001220293 of 2022 dated 26.07.2022 registered at Barwada Police Station, Botad and (iii) CR-I No. 11190006220446 of 2022 dated 26.07.2022 registered at Ranpur Police Station, Botad for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 304, 328 and 120B of IPC and Section 67-1A of the Gujarat Prohibition Act. Learned advocate for the petitioner further submits that in connection with the said FIRs, the petitioner had preferred applications being Cr.M.A. No. 15158 of 2022, Cr.M.A. No. 15170 of 2022 and Cr.M.A. No. 15172 of 2022 before this Court, wherein this Court vide common order dated 15.09.2022 was pleased to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. It is submitted that investigation in connection with the said FIRs has been concluded and charge sheet has been filed in all the three cases being Sessions Case No. 283 of 2022 before the District & Sessions Court, Ahmedabad (Rural) and Sessions Case No. 70 of 2022 and Sessions Case No. 71 of 2022 before the District Court, Botad. The aforesaid Sessions Cases are pending trial. 2.1 It is further submitted that since the passport of the petitioner along with Visa to USA was due to expire in near future, the petitioner has preferred interim applications before this Court seeking modification / relaxation of the condition imposed in the Anticipatory Bail order which directed the petitioner to deposit his passport and restrained him from leaving India without prior permission of the Court. After considering the submissions and the facts, this Court vide its order dated 15.01.2026 had directed that the said condition was to be kept in abeyance for a period of three months with liberty to the petitioner to seek further extension, if required. Pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 15.01.2026, the petitioner had renewed the Visa to USA being valid from 03.02.2026 to 29.01.2036. The passport which was issued on 10.08.2016 and is valid upto 09.08.2026. 3. Mr. Pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 15.01.2026, the petitioner had renewed the Visa to USA being valid from 03.02.2026 to 29.01.2036. The passport which was issued on 10.08.2016 and is valid upto 09.08.2026. 3. Mr. Pradip D. Bhate, learned advocate for the respondent No.1 submits that since the criminal case is pending against the petitioner, the passport of the petitioner is being renewed annually. However, learned advocate could not dispute the legal position that the passport of the petitioner can be renewed for a normal period of 10 years. 4. Heard learned advocates for the parties, considered the submissions and perused the documents on record. 5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was holding a valid passport, which was issued on 10.08.2016 and is valid upto 09.08.2026. It is also not in dispute that 3 FIRs arising out of the same set of facts and transactions were being registered against the petitioner. In connection with the said FIRs, the petitioner had preferred Criminal Misc. Applications, wherein this Court vide common order dated 15.09.2022 was pleased to enlarge the petitioner on Anticipatory Bail. It is also not in dispute that investigation in connection with the said FIRs has been concluded and charge sheet has been filed in all the three cases resulting in registration of Sessions Cases are pending adjudication. 6. Applications, wherein this Court vide common order dated 15.09.2022 was pleased to enlarge the petitioner on Anticipatory Bail. It is also not in dispute that investigation in connection with the said FIRs has been concluded and charge sheet has been filed in all the three cases resulting in registration of Sessions Cases are pending adjudication. 6. The GSR Notification 570(E) dated 25th August, 1993 reads as under: “G.S.R 570 (E) - In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of the 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 offences 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: 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 or a period one year; or (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 (iv) if such order gives permission to travel abroad for a period exceeding one year, and does not specify the validity of the passport, then the passport shall be issued for period of travel abroad specified in the order. 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; any passport issued in terms of (a) (i) above can be further renewed only on the basis of 3 fresh court order specifying a further period of validity of the passport or specifying a period for travel abroad; 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.” 7. Clause (ii) thereof states that if there is no period specified in the order passed by the Learned Trial Court for the issuance of passport, the passport shall be issued for a period of one year. The said Notification also specifies in Clause (i) that if the Ld. concerned court specifies the period for which the passport has to be issued, then the passport shall be issued for such a specified period. 8. The Division Bench of the High Court of Mumbai in the case of Narendra K. Ambwani v. Union of India & Ors. being Writ Petition No. 361 of 2014, vide the order dated 13 th March, 2014 has held that: “10. In the circumstances, we propose to issue guidelines to be followed by the Respondents on receipt of the applications for renewal of the passports, in all cases, where the Magistrate’s court has directed that the passports may be renewed as per the “Rules”. 11. Accordingly, we issue the following directions: 1. In all cases where the Magistrate's court directs renewal of the passports under the Rules, the Passport Rules, 1980 shall apply and passports other than for a child aged more than 15 years shall be renewed for a period of ten years or twenty years as the case may be from the date of its issue. All qualifying applicants are entitled to have passport renewed for atleast ten years. The Regional Passport Office shall renew the passports of such qualifying applicants atleast for ten years. 2. All qualifying applicants are entitled to have passport renewed for atleast ten years. The Regional Passport Office shall renew the passports of such qualifying applicants atleast for ten years. 2. In case where the passports are valid and the applicants hold valid visas on existing passport, the Regional Passport Officer shall issue the additional booklet to the same passport provided the applicant had obtained permission to travel abroad. 3. If the learned Magistrate passes an order making the reference to the said Notification No. G.S.R. 570(E) dated 26 th August, 1993, the passport shall be renewed only for such period that the Magistrate may specify in the order or as otherwise specified in the said Notification where the passport of the applicant is valid for less than one year, the additional booklet may be issued subject to the orders to be obtained in this behalf only of the Magistrate concerned. 12. For avoidance of doubt, we clarify that the guidelines set out herein will be applicable only in the cases where the learned Magistrate ordered renewal of the passports as per Passport Rules, 1980 and to no other. In other cases, where the learned Magistrate had granted permission to the accused persons to depart from India, the provisions of Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967 and the Notification(s) issued thereunder from time to time by the Ministry of External Affairs or such other competent authority so empowered, will continue to apply and directions permitting the accused persons to depart from India and/or the orders permitting renewal of the passports of such accused persons shall continue Notification(s).” 9. Though the said decision is not binding on this Court, it certainly has a persuasive value. In the considered opinion of this Court, the ratio of said judgment squarely applies in facts and circumstances of the present case. The Central Government has issued a Notification by exercising powers vested in it under Section 6(2)(f) of the Passport Act, 1967 being GSR Notification 570(E) dated 25th August, 1993. There being an ambiguity under the provisions of the Act, the Rules and the GSR Notification 570(E) dated 25th August, 1993 issued by the passport authority, the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court has clarified the said ambiguity in case of Narendra K. Ambwani (Supra) . There being an ambiguity under the provisions of the Act, the Rules and the GSR Notification 570(E) dated 25th August, 1993 issued by the passport authority, the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court has clarified the said ambiguity in case of Narendra K. Ambwani (Supra) . This Court is also of the considered opinion that the passport authorities do not have any authority to decide whether the accused has a right to travel abroad and such authority is only vested in the Ld. Trial Court which can impose conditions if an application is made seeking permission to travel abroad. This Court is also of the considered opinion that the directions issued by the High Court of Mumbai are binding upon the passport authorities to renew the passport for a period of ten years as per the Act and the Rules. 10. In view of the aforesaid reasons and observations, the respondent authorities are directed to renew the passport of the petitioner for a period of 10 years. However, it is clarified that if the petitioner has to undertake any travel abroad, the petitioner will have to make appropriate application to the concerned learned Trial Court seeking permission to travel abroad, which shall decide the same on its own merits and may impose such conditions as it deems fit and proper in case of the petitioner. 11. With the aforesaid directions, the present Special Civil Application is allowed, and accordingly stands disposed of. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct Service is permitted.