Virender Kumar Chawla v. Central Bereau Of Investigation Thru. Cbi

1. Heard Sri Pranjal Krishna, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Anurag Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.1-Central Bureau Of Investigation and Sri S.B. Pandey, the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India assisted by Sri Varun Pandey, the learned counsel for the respondents no.2 and 3.

2. By means of the instant application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C, the applicant has challenged the validity of an order dated 05.08.2025 passed by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate, Pollution/CBI, Lucknow in the Criminal Case No. 126506 of 2022 (CBI Vs. JML Marketing Pvt. Ltd. and Others) arising out Crime No. RC0532022E0002, registered with Police Station - CBI/SCB, Lucknow under Sections 120B, 420, 406 I.P.C, whereby the applicant's prayer for seeking permission to travel abroad has been rejected.

3. By way of amendment, the applicant has further prayed for setting aside a letter dated 16.07.2025 issued by the Regional Passport Office, Chandigarh, Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India, whereby the applicant's request for renewal of passport has been turned down on the ground that he has not been granted permission to travel abroad. On 07.07.2025, the trial court had passed an order allowing the applicant's application seeking permission for renewal of his passport for a period of three years. 2 A482 No. 7521 of 2025

4. In compliance of the aforesaid order dated 07.07.2025, the applicant filed an application for renewal of the passport. The Regional Passport Office, Chandigarh issued a letter dated 16.07.2025, stating that as per the notification dated 25.08.1993, passport can be renewed only if the trial court has permitted to depart from India and the applicant was advised to submit a fresh order from the trial court granting permission to travel abroad. It was in furtherance of this order, that the applicant filed an application seeking permission for travel abroad, which has been rejected by the impugned order. The trial court has rejected an application seeking permission to travel abroad on the ground that the travel is not required for any essential purpose and it is merely for a trip to Switzerland. Keeping in view the nature of trip, the trial court declined the permission.

5.The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that even if the permission to travel abroad has been declined, the applicant's passport needs to be renewed as in case of any exigency, if the applicant is in urgent need of travel abroad for example for an urgent medical exigency or essential business purposes, the applicant should have an effective passport with him.

6. Opposing this prayer, the learned counsel for the respondents have submitted that Section 6 (2)(f) of Passport Act, 1967 provides that the passport authority shall refuse to make an endorsement for visiting any foreign counter inter alia on the ground that proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant are pending before the Criminal Court in India. He has submitted that a notification dated

10.10.2019 issued in exercise of powers under Section 22 of the Passport Act, this condition has been relaxed to some extent and it has been provided that in case a person, who is an accused of an offence and a criminal case is pending before him/her, produces orders from the court concerned permitting him/her to depart from India, the provisions of Section 6(2)(f) of Passport Act, 1967 will not apply in case the court grants permission to him to travel abroad. This notification further provides that the passport shall be issued to every such person for a period specified in order of the court referred to above, if the court specifies the period for which the passport has to be issued. In other cases, where the period of travel abroad is specified is in the order, it will be relevant for determining the duration, for which the passport is being renewed. 3 A482 No. 7521 of 2025

7. A bare perusal of the aforesaid notification dated 10.10.2019 indicates that where a permission to travel abroad has already been granted, the duration of travel will be relevant for determining the duration of period of renewal of the passport but where the travel abroad has not been permitted immediately, even in that case, passport can be issued for a duration fixed by the court.

8. The learned counsel for the respondent no.1-Central Bureau of Investigation has stated that he would have no objection against renewal of the passport provided a condition is put that the passport will remain in custody of the trial court and the applicant will not travel abroad without seeking permission of the trial court.

9. The learned counsel for the applicant has no objection against such a condition being put in the order.

10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and submission made by the learned counsel for the parties, the petition is allowed in part and the order dated 16.07.2025 passed by the Regional Passport Office, Chandigarh directing the applicant to get fresh orders from the trial court permitting the applicant to travel abroad, is set aside.

11. The Regional Passport Office, Chandigarh is directed to renew the applicant's passport in terms of the order dated 07.07.2025 passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate, Pollution/CBI, Lucknow in the Criminal Case No. 126506 of 2022 (CBI Vs. JML Marketing Pvt. Ltd. and Other) arising out of Crime No. RC0532022E0002, registered with Police Station - CBI/SCB, Lucknow under Sections 120B, 420, 406 I.P.C, directing the applicant to get his passport renewed for a period of three years from the date of renewal. It is provided that upon renewal of the passport, the passport shall be deposited with the trial court within a period of one week from the date of its receipt by the applicant. September 15, 2025 Preeti. (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) PREETI GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Sri Pranjal Krishna, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Anurag Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.1-Central Bureau Of Investigation and Sri S.B. Pandey, the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India assisted by Sri Varun Pandey, the learned counsel for the respondents no.2 and 3.

2. By means of the instant application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C, the applicant has challenged the validity of an order dated 05.08.2025 passed by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate, Pollution/CBI, Lucknow in the Criminal Case No. 126506 of 2022 (CBI Vs. JML Marketing Pvt. Ltd. and Others) arising out Crime No. RC0532022E0002, registered with Police Station - CBI/SCB, Lucknow under Sections 120B, 420, 406 I.P.C, whereby the applicant's prayer for seeking permission to travel abroad has been rejected.

3. By way of amendment, the applicant has further prayed for setting aside a letter dated 16.07.2025 issued by the Regional Passport Office, Chandigarh, Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India, whereby the applicant's request for renewal of passport has been turned down on the ground that he has not been granted permission to travel abroad. On 07.07.2025, the trial court had passed an order allowing the applicant's application seeking permission for renewal of his passport for a period of three years. 2 A482 No. 7521 of 2025

4. In compliance of the aforesaid order dated 07.07.2025, the applicant filed an application for renewal of the passport. The Regional Passport Office, Chandigarh issued a letter dated 16.07.2025, stating that as per the notification dated 25.08.1993, passport can be renewed only if the trial court has permitted to depart from India and the applicant was advised to submit a fresh order from the trial court granting permission to travel abroad. It was in furtherance of this order, that the applicant filed an application seeking permission for travel abroad, which has been rejected by the impugned order. The trial court has rejected an application seeking permission to travel abroad on the ground that the travel is not required for any essential purpose and it is merely for a trip to Switzerland. Keeping in view the nature of trip, the trial court declined the permission.

5.The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that even if the permission to travel abroad has been declined, the applicant's passport needs to be renewed as in case of any exigency, if the applicant is in urgent need of travel abroad for example for an urgent medical exigency or essential business purposes, the applicant should have an effective passport with him.

6. Opposing this prayer, the learned counsel for the respondents have submitted that Section 6 (2)(f) of Passport Act, 1967 provides that the passport authority shall refuse to make an endorsement for visiting any foreign counter inter alia on the ground that proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant are pending before the Criminal Court in India. He has submitted that a notification dated

10.10.2019 issued in exercise of powers under Section 22 of the Passport Act, this condition has been relaxed to some extent and it has been provided that in case a person, who is an accused of an offence and a criminal case is pending before him/her, produces orders from the court concerned permitting him/her to depart from India, the provisions of Section 6(2)(f) of Passport Act, 1967 will not apply in case the court grants permission to him to travel abroad. This notification further provides that the passport shall be issued to every such person for a period specified in order of the court referred to above, if the court specifies the period for which the passport has to be issued. In other cases, where the period of travel abroad is specified is in the order, it will be relevant for determining the duration, for which the passport is being renewed. 3 A482 No. 7521 of 2025

7. A bare perusal of the aforesaid notification dated 10.10.2019 indicates that where a permission to travel abroad has already been granted, the duration of travel will be relevant for determining the duration of period of renewal of the passport but where the travel abroad has not been permitted immediately, even in that case, passport can be issued for a duration fixed by the court.

8. The learned counsel for the respondent no.1-Central Bureau of Investigation has stated that he would have no objection against renewal of the passport provided a condition is put that the passport will remain in custody of the trial court and the applicant will not travel abroad without seeking permission of the trial court.

9. The learned counsel for the applicant has no objection against such a condition being put in the order.

10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and submission made by the learned counsel for the parties, the petition is allowed in part and the order dated 16.07.2025 passed by the Regional Passport Office, Chandigarh directing the applicant to get fresh orders from the trial court permitting the applicant to travel abroad, is set aside.

11. The Regional Passport Office, Chandigarh is directed to renew the applicant's passport in terms of the order dated 07.07.2025 passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate, Pollution/CBI, Lucknow in the Criminal Case No. 126506 of 2022 (CBI Vs. JML Marketing Pvt. Ltd. and Other) arising out of Crime No. RC0532022E0002, registered with Police Station - CBI/SCB, Lucknow under Sections 120B, 420, 406 I.P.C, directing the applicant to get his passport renewed for a period of three years from the date of renewal. It is provided that upon renewal of the passport, the passport shall be deposited with the trial court within a period of one week from the date of its receipt by the applicant. September 15, 2025 Preeti. (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) PREETI GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench