Seikh Tajuddin v. State of Odisha
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.2583 of 2025, CRLMC No.2630 of 2025, CRLMC No.2631 of 2025, CRLMC No.2635 of 2025, CRLMC No.2638 of 2025, CRLMC No.2639 of 2025, CRLMC No.2641 of 2025, CRLMC No.2643 of 2025, CRLMC No.2644 of 2025, & CRLMC No.2646 of 2025 (Applications under Section 528 of B.N.S.S., 2023) In CRLMC No.2583 of 2025 Seikh Tajuddin … Petitioner - Versus - State of Odisha … Opposite Party In CRLMC No. 2630 of 2025 Seikh Tajuddin … Petitioner - Versus - State of Odisha … Opposite Party In CRLMC No. 2631 of 2025 Seikh Tajuddin … Petitioner - Versus - State of Odisha … Opposite Party Page 1 of 26. In CRLMC No. 2635 of 2025 Seikh Tajuddin … Petitioner - Versus - State of Odisha … Opposite Party In CRLMC No. 2638 of 2025 Seikh Tajuddin … Petitioner - Versus - State of Odisha … Opposite Party In CRLMC No. 2639 of 2025 Seikh Tajuddin … Petitioner - Versus - State of Odisha … Opposite Party In CRLMC No. 2641 of 2025 Seikh Tajuddin … Petitioner - Versus - State of Odisha … Opposite Party In CRLMC No. 2643 of 2025 Seikh Tajuddin … Petitioner - Versus - State of Odisha … Opposite Party In CRLMC No. 2644 of 2025 Seikh Tajuddin … Petitioner - Versus - State of Odisha … Opposite Party Page 2 of 26. In CRLMC No. 2646 of 2025 Seikh Tajuddin … Petitioner - Versus - State of Odisha … Opposite Party Advocate(s) appeared in these cases:- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner … M/s. Deepali Mahapatra & J. Panda (In all cases)
Legal Reasoning
decided by this Court in all the above noted applications is identical in nature, all the above noted CRLMC applications are taken up for hearing together and the
Arguments
For Opposite Party … Mr. Udit Ranjan Jena, (In all cases) Additional Government Advocate. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. P.K. Parhi, Deputy Solicitor General of India CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ____________________________________________________________ Date of hearing & judgment : 10th December, 2025 Aditya Kumar Mohapatra, J. 1. The present batch of applications have been filed by a common Accused-Petitioner in all these cases under Section 528 of B.N.S.S., 2023, which corresponds to Section 482 of Cr.P.C., with a prayer to quash/set aside the impugned order dated 06.03.2025, at Annexure-3 to CRLMC No.2583 of 2025, passed by the learned Page 3 of 26. J.M.F.C. (Cog. Taking), Bhadrak in respect of G.R. Case No.708 of 2017 and similar impugned orders passed by the learned J.M.F.C. which are subject matter of challenge in the above noted CRLMC applications whereby the prayer of the Petitioner before learned Magistrate for grant of NOC in favour of the Petitioner for issuance of a passport to travel abroad has been rejected. 2. Since all the above noted CRLMC applications have been filed by a common accused in different G.R. cases pertaining to a common incident that had taken place in the year 2017, the nature of the relief sought for in all the aforesaid applications is similar and the issue that is to be
Decision
same are being disposed of by the following order. Page 4 of 26. 3. Heard Ms. Deepali Mahapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. U.R. Jena, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-Opposite Party; Mr P.K. Parhi, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India for the Union of India. Perused application as well as the documents filed along with CRLMC applications and the impugned rejection orders. 4. Since all the CRLMC applications involve an identical factual background and the nature of relief sought for is similar, this Court takes up for consideration the facts involved in CRLMC No.2583 of 2025 as the lead matter in the present batch of CRLMC applications. 5. The Petitioner, who belongs to the Muslim community, is a permanent resident of Bhadrak Town and running his business there. In the year 2017, a communal riot erupted in Bhadrak Town, as a result of which extensive damage was caused to the properties belonging to the persons of both the communities. Later, several Page 5 of 26. F.I.Rs were registered pertaining to the self-same incident. In the present case, an F.I.R. was lodged before the Purunabazar P.S. of Bhadrak District which was registered as P.S. Case No.60 of 2017 for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 147/148/294/454/427/395/436/153A/506/149 of I.P.C. The F.I.R. was lodged initially against four named accused persons and some other unknown accused persons and the name of the Petitioner does not find place in the F.I.R. The F.I.R. which was lodged by one Prasanta Kumar Sahu on 10.04.2017, inter alia, alleges that on the very same day at about 7.05 P.M. in the evening, while he was preparing ‘Chhatua’ in his factory, accused persons armed with weapons entered into the factory of the Informant. The Informant was given a life threat and asked to leave the place instantly. Thereafter, the Informant ran away from his factory. Consequently, the accused persons ransacked the factory premises and stole Page 6 of 26. away food articles which were stored in his factory. Eventually, the factory premises was set on fire, as a result of which, the Informant has sustained huge financial loss. Accordingly, the F.I.R. was registered for commission of offences as has been indicated hereinabove. 6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at the outset, contended that the Petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and that he has no involvement in the alleged rioting in Bhadrak that had taken place in the year 2017. She further contended that the Petitioner was immediately released on bail and that multiple cases were registered against the Petitioner are all triable by Magistrate. It was also urged before this Court that the Petitioner has a very good track record, except the cases which were registered against him in the year 2017 for alleged rioting in Bhadrak. She further contended that the Petitioner, being a member of the Muslim community, Page 7 of 26. wants to go on pilgrimage to Macca, situated in Saudi Arabia. In fact, it was contended that it is the pious duty and dream of every Muslim to visit the shrine of Macca at least once, which is also popularly known as HAJ among the Muslim community members. 7. For the aforesaid purposes, the Petitioner is required to travel to Saudi Arabia and, as such, he requires a passport. Accordingly, the Petitioner applied for a passport. Initially his application for passport was rejected. Being aggrieved by the rejection order of his passport application, the Petitioner earlier moved before this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.3399 of 2025. This Court, vide order dated 06.02.2025, disposed of the above noted writ application with an observation that the Notification of the Government of India bearing GSR No.570(E) provides that a person, who desires to get a passport and against whom there is a criminal case pending, such person is required to obtain NOC Page 8 of 26. Certificate/clearance certificate from the court where the matter is pending and, accordingly, the Petitioner was granted liberty to move the trial court for grant of NOC/clearance in terms of GSR No.570(E). Pursuant to the order dated 06.02.2025 in W.P.(C) No.3399 of 2025, the Petitioner approached the learned J.M.F.C.-I, Cog Taking, Bhadrak by filing an application for grant of NOC. In his application, the Petitioner had stated the ground that he wants to perform HAJ rituals at Macca in Saudi Arabia and that the right to hold a passport and travel is a fundamental right guaranteed to every citizen under the Constitution of India unless the Petitioner is prevented by any legal authority. However, learned J.M.F.C.-I, Cog Taking, Bhadrak, without considering the prayer of the Petitioner in its proper perspective, rejected the application in a mechanical manner, vide his order dated 06.03.2025, by being heavily influenced by the fact that several cases have pending against the present Page 9 of 26. Petitioner. Learned trial court has referred to the Petitioner as a habitual offender. Being aggrieved by such rejection of his prayer, the Petitioner has finally approached this Court by filing the present application. 8. In course of her argument, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the criminal cases which are initiated against the Petitioner relate to the 2017 Bhadrak riot, which is a single incident. Moreover, it was emphatically argued that the Petitioner has no involvement in such rioting. Besides, it was argued that the Petitioner was on bail in all the above noted cases. With regard to the finding of the learned trial court that the Petitioner is a habitual offender, it was argued by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that all the above noted cases arises out of one incident. She further elaborated that the Petitioner does not have any case before or after the year 2017. During investigation also, the Petitioner has not been shown as an absconder and he has fully Page 10 of 26. cooperated with the Investigating Officer. Thus, it was argued that there exists no possibility of the Petitioner absconding from justice. 9. She further contended that the Petitioner is a permanent resident of Bhadrak Town having his residence and business activities, and that the Petitioner has nowhere to go except his home town Bhadrak. She also laid emphasis on the fact that although the Petitioner is on bail for last eight years, the trial has not yet commenced and there is no allegation that the Petitioner has ever misused the liberty granted to him. Since every Muslim is required to go on a spiritual/religious journey to Macca and such practice holds a profound significance in Islam, it was argued that deprivation of such opportunity would cause serious prejudice to the Petitioner and that the same would also be discriminatory in nature. Additionally it was argued that the right to practice and promote one’s own religion and faith is a Page 11 of 26. right guaranteed under Article 25 to 28 of the Constitution of India. On such ground, learned counsel for the Petitioner has assailed the impugned rejection orders. 10. Per contra, learned counsel for the State contended that the learned trial court has not committed any illegality in rejecting the prayer of the Petitioner by virtue of the impugned order dated 06.03.2025. Learned counsel for the State at the beginning submitted that the Petitioner is involved in a serious crime of rioting. It was also contended that the Petitioner is involved in a series of offences which is manifest from the record. Learned counsel for the State further contended that the cases in which the Petitioner has sought NOC were of the year 2017 and in the event the Petitioner is granted NOC for grant of passport and, eventually leaves the country, the same would cause serious impediment in the early conclusion of the trials. He further alleges that the Page 12 of 26. Petitioner is a habitual offender as has been found by the leaned trial court in its order dated 06.03.2025. 11. Learned counsel for the State, in course of his argument, referred to the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Indrani Mukerjea V. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. [Special Leave to Appeal (Crl. No.17027/2024, disposed of on 12.02.2025). By referring to the aforesaid order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, learned counsel for the State contended that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically declined to grant permission to the Petitioner to travel abroad during pendency of the criminal case. On such ground, leaned counsel for the State contended that the learned trial court has not committed any irregularity in rejecting the prayer of the Petitioner. As such, it was argued that the present applications, being devoid of merit, are liable to be dismissed at the threshold. Page 13 of 26. 12. Mr. P.K. Parhi, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, appearing on behalf of the Union of India has also objected to grant of NOC to the Petitioner. He further contended that looking at the criminal background of the present Petitioner, he should not be permitted to travel abroad. 13. During the course of his argument, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India expressed his apprehension that in the event the Petitioner is permitted to travel to Macca, there is every likelihood that he might end up at some place where there are high chances of him being radicalized. He also expressed his apprehension with regard to the fact that the Petitioner might not return to India. On such ground, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India vehemently opposed the application filed by the Petitioner for grant of NOC for getting passport to travel abroad. Page 14 of 26. 14. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, on a careful examination of the background facts, this Court found that it is not disputed by the parties that the Petitioner has been implicated in several cases of rioting of the year 2017 and, all those cases relate to the Bhadrak riot. It is also not disputed that although the case was registered in the year 2017, however, till date the trial has not commenced. On perusal of the affidavit filed by the State-Opposite Party dated 10.12.2025, it appears that the Petitioner is involved in two cases of Bhadrak Town P.S. and in sixteen cases of Purunabazar P.S. Further, pursuant to the order dated 25.11.2025 of this Court, the IIC of Purunabazar P.S. has stated in his affidavit dated 10.12.2025 that no case has been registered against the Petitioner after 2017. The relevant paragraph, i.e. paragraph-5 is extracted herein below:- Page 15 of 26. “5. That, this Hon’ble Court vide order dtd. 25.11.2025 was pleased to direct that whether any criminal antecedent is pending against the petitioner after 2017. In obedience to this Hon’ble Court’s order verified the available P.S. records and CCTNS portal and it is found that after the year 2017 no FIR found registered by name against the petitioner.” (emphasis supplied by Court) 15. Moreover, on a closer scrutiny, this Court found that in most of the cases the Petitioner was not initially named in the F.I.R., however, he has been implicated as an accused at the subsequent stage of the investigation. All these cases relate to the self-same incident, i.e. the riots in Bhadrak that took place in the year 2017. 16. Furthermore, what is significant in the context of the present case is that no F.I.R. has been registered against the Petitioner after 2017, as is evident from paragraph-5 of the affidavit dated 10.12.2025. It is also a fact that in none of the cases the trial has commenced. 17. In so far as the law relating to grant of passport is concerned, the same is governed by the Notification of Page 16 of 26. the Government of India in GSR No.570(E). The said Notification provides that to get a passport under the Passport Act, a person against whom a criminal case is pending is required to obtain NOC/Clearance from the concerned court where the case is pending for trial. It is only after getting such clearance that the passport authorities will consider the passport application of an accused who desires to travel abroad. In fact, the above noted Notification provides for issuance of passport for a temporary period subject to clearance/NOC by the trial court. Taking into consideration the aforesaid GSR, a coordinate Bench of this Court, while disposing of W.P(C) No.3399 of 2025 filed by the Petitioner, granted liberty to the Petitioner to move the concerned criminal court seeking an order of No Objection. 18. In the present case, the Petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 06.03.2025, wherein his prayer for grant of NOC was rejected, has approached this Court once Page 17 of 26. again by filing the present applications. In the rejection order dated 06.03.2025, the learned trial court has obviously referred to the GSR No.570(E) of the Government of India. However, the prayer of the Petitioner has been rejected on the ground that the Petitioner is a habitual offender and that he has been implicated as an accused in many cases which are pending for trial. The learned trial court has also expressed doubt regarding the fact that there is a distinct possibility that the Petitioner might abscond in the event he is permitted to travel abroad. Accordingly, the application of the Petitioner has been rejected on the ground of the nature and gravity of the offences alleged against him, as well as the fact that the Petitioner is having criminal antecedent. 19. On a perusal of the order relied upon by the learned counsel for the State in the case of Indrani Mukerjea (supra), this Court observes that the same is an order Page 18 of 26. rejecting the prayer of the Petitioner on the ground that trial is on-going, and, that such trial involves an allegation of a conspiracy of murder. As such, this Court is of the view that the aforesaid order would not stand in the way of the present Petitioner. No doubt, the Passport Act which governs the field with regard to grant of passport creates an embargo with regard to issuance of passport to the persons who are having criminal antecedents. However, the Government of India, vide Notification in GSR No.570(E) dated 25.08.1993, provides that the application for grant of passport can only be considered provided the accused-applicant produces a clearance certificate/NOC from the court where the trial is pending against him. Thus, it is clear that the law does not create an absolute embargo on the issue of a passport to an accused who is facing trial. 20. With regard to the right of a person to hold a passport, this Court would like to refer to the provision Page 19 of 26. under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Article 21 of the Constitution of India has been interpreted in the case of Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India, reported in 1978 (1) SCC 248 and it has been categorically held that right to hold a passport and travel is a fundamental right and an individual cannot be prevented from traveling abroad unless there exists a law that authorizes the State to impose such a restriction lawfully. It would be profitable to quote paragraph-5 of the aforesaid judgment:- for the procedure “Thus, no person can be deprived of his right to, go abroad unless there is a law made by the State prescribing 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 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 Page 20 of 26. sufficient compliance with Article 21. Is the prescription of some sort of procedure enough the procedure comply with any or must particular requirement? 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 that any procedure howsoever contend arbitrary, oppressive or unjust may be prescribed by the law.” 21. It would also be apt to refer to a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Venkata Siva Kumar Yadhanapudi vs. Union of India, reported in 2024 SCC Online TS 402, wherein it has been held that pendency of a criminal case could not be a ground to deny passport facilities to the petitioner since petitioner’s right to personal liberty not only includes the right to travel abroad, but also the right to possess or hold a passport. 22. Likewise, our High Court, in Ashok Kumar Sipani vs. Union of India and another (W.P.(C) No.30881 of 2022), while considering an identical issue has held that it would be absurd to hold that pendency of criminal case, Page 21 of 26. as referred to in Section-6, would have a different consequence than Section-10. It has also been held that there is no absolute bar in the Act for issuing and renewing the passport on the ground of pendency of criminal case and, on a wholesome reading of the act, it would imply that mere pendency of criminal case cannot, in all cases, lead to impounding of the Passport. 23. A similar issue was also the subject matter of dispute before a coordinate Bench of this Court in CRLMC No.1460 of 2025 in the matter of Fakira Karna v. State of Odisha, decided vide order dated 17.04.2025, wherein learned coordinate Bench after taking into consideration the judgments cited before him, has come to a conclusion that there is no legal impediment in granting a passport to a person having a criminal case pending against him. Further, it has also been observed that the right to apply for, hold and possess a passport, in itself, cannot be arbitrarily denied or revoked merely on the ground that a Page 22 of 26. criminal case is pending, be it at the stage of investigation or trial. 24. In view of the aforesaid analysis of the legal position, further keeping in view the surrounding facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court has no hesitation in coming to a conclusion that the impugned order dated 06.03.2025, at Annexure-3 to the CRLMC No.2583 of 2025, passed by the learned J.M.F.C.-I, Cog Taking, Bhadrak is unsustainable in law. It is the considered view of this Court that the Learned J.M.F.C.-I, Cog Taking, Bhadrak should have taken into consideration the fact that even though the case is pending since 2017, the trial has not commenced as of now, which in itself no less than a punishment inflicted on the Petitioner. Moreover, the Petitioner does not have any criminal antecedent after the year 2017, as per the affidavit filed by the IIC of Purunabazar P.S. Therefore, the circumstances that are required to be considered in a Page 23 of 26. case of this nature are, as follows; (i) whether by grant of NOC, the Petitioner would get a passport; (ii) whether there is possibility that the Petitioner might abscond; (iii) whether there is a possibility that the applicant might not appear before the trial court, which would cause unnecessary delay in conclusion of the trial; (iv) whether, in an on-going trial the absence of the Petitioner would interrupt the trial; (v) whether there exists any flight risk regarding the Petitioner; (vi) whether the grant of passport would pose a threat to national security. 25. The above are some of the grounds which are required to be considered by the learned trial court while considering an application for grant of NOC/clearance certificate for issuance of the passport. Such factors have not been taken into consideration in the present case by the learned trial court while passing the impugned order dated 06.03.2025. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the learned trial court has definitely committed an error Page 24 of 26. which requires interference by this Court in exercise of its inherent power to secure the ends of justice. 26. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 06.03.2025, at Annexure-3 to CRLMC No.2583 of 2025, passed by the learned J.M.F.C.-I (Cog Taking), Bhadrak, is hereby quashed. Similarly, the impugned orders in connected applications are also hereby quashed. Further, the matters are remanded back to the learned trial court to consider the application of the Petitioner and grant required NOC/clearance certificate in terms of the Notification vide GSR No.570(E), within a period of four weeks from the date of production of a copy of this order. Learned trial court shall do well to grant NOC/clearance for a limited period of one year for issuance of passport to visit only one country i.e. Saudi Arabia for pilgrimage (HAJ) subject to Petitioner providing adequate property security to be decided by the trial court. Page 25 of 26. 27. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the CRLMC applications stand allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. ( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack. The 10th December, 2025/ Debasis Aech, Secretary Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: DEBASIS AECH Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 18-Dec-2025 17:11:10 Page 26 of 26.