# Ms. Sapna @ Sapna Choudhary v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2024) 4 ILRA 573
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-04-08
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482. No. 2713 of 2024
- **Bench:** Shamim Ahmed
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ms-sapna-sapna-choudhary-v-state-of-u-p-anr-51835
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

(A) Criminal Law - The Code of Criminal
Procedure,
1973
-
Section
482
-
Inherent power - Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Section 406,420 - Constitutional
Law - Fundamental Rights - Passport Act
- Articles 19(1)(d), 19(1)(g), 21; Right
to travel abroad as part of personal
liberty guaranteed under Article 21 and
19(1)(g) Notification dated 25.08.1993;
Office Memorandum dated 10.10.2019 -
Passport - Personal Liberty - Travel
Abroad - Fundamental Right - Right to a
passport is a fundamental right of
Indian citizens - Right to travel abroad
as part of personal liberty guaranteed
under Article 21 and 19(1)(g) - No
statutory bar for granting no objection
for
passport
renewal/issue
during
pendency of criminal case; discretion
with court. (Para - 10,11,12)

Applicant's passport renewal/re-issue rejected
by trial court; applicant filed Section 482
Cr.P.C. application.(Para 10-13)

HELD: - Impugned order rejecting passport
renewal/re-issue set aside; fresh application
to be decided within one month. (Para 12-13)

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. allowed. (E7)
List of Cases cited:

## Text

4 All. Ms. Sapna @ Sapna Choudhary Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
573
(2024) 4 ILRA 573
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 08.04.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHAMIM AHMED, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 2713 of 2024

Ms. Sapna @ Sapna Choudhary ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Keshav Prasad

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

(A) Criminal Law - The Code of Criminal
Procedure,
1973
-
Section
482
-
Inherent power - Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Section 406,420 - Constitutional
Law - Fundamental Rights - Passport Act
- Articles 19(1)(d), 19(1)(g), 21; Right
to travel abroad as part of personal
liberty guaranteed under Article 21 and
19(1)(g) Notification dated 25.08.1993;
Office Memorandum dated 10.10.2019 -
Passport - Personal Liberty - Travel
Abroad - Fundamental Right - Right to a
passport is a fundamental right of
Indian citizens - Right to travel abroad
as part of personal liberty guaranteed
under Article 21 and 19(1)(g) - No
statutory bar for granting no objection
for
passport
renewal/issue
during
pendency of criminal case; discretion
with court. (Para - 10,11,12)

Applicant's passport renewal/re-issue rejected
by trial court; applicant filed Section 482
Cr.P.C. application.(Para 10-13)

HELD: - Impugned order rejecting passport
renewal/re-issue set aside; fresh application
to be decided within one month. (Para 12-13)

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. allowed. (E7)
List of Cases cited:

1. Maneka Gandhi Vs U.O.I. ,1978 (1) SCC 248

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed, J.)

1. Heard Ms Priti Singh, Advocate
assisted by Sri Pramod K. Tiwari, Sanklan
Porwal and Sri Keshav Prasad, learned
counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri
Surya Bhan Pandey, learned Sr. Advocate
and Deputy Solicitor General of India
assisted by Sri Varun Pandey, learned
counsel for the Union of India and Sri
Ashok Kumar Srivastava, learned A.G.A.
for the State and perused the record.

2. The instant application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been for grant of
permission/No objection for issuance of
Passport to the applicant Mrs. Sapna @
Sapna Choudhary D/o Sh. Bhupender @
Bhupender Attri presently residing at: ATS
Kocoon, Flat No. 5041, Section 109,
Gurugram, Haryana in Case Crime No.
621/2018, under Section 406/420 I.P.C.,
Police Sattion Ashiyana, District Lucknow
in so far it relates to the applicant, pending
in the court of Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Court No. 29, District Lucknow
be setting aside order dated 21.12.2023.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant
submits that on 13.10.2018, the respondent
No.2 who is posed as Sub-Inspector at
Police Station Ashiyana, District Lucknow
lodged a compaint/application against the
applicant and others. Upon the aforesaid
application on 14.10.2018, an F.I.R. got
registered in Case Crime No. 0621 of 2018,
under Section 406/420 I.P.C. Police Station
Ashiyana, District Lucknow

4. Learned counsel for the applicant
submits that passport was issued to the
applicant by Regisional Passport Office
574 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
concerned. The validity of the said passport
has been expired. Learned counsel for the
applicant further submits that the applicant
is an artist/actress and is required to travel
to various destinations/countries for her
performances and she is required to move
application seeking permission to travel
abroad every time she travels. The entire
process is not only causing difficulty to the
petitioner but also putting burden upon the
trial court and due to the issuance of the
short validity passport to the applicant, the
applicant is unable to get visas for many
host countries where she is required to
perform or to attend functions, which is
resulting in loss of business and income to
the
applicant
and
she
prays
for
permission/NOC
to
get
her
passport
renewed for the period of 10 years.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant
further submits that an application was
filed by the applicant before the court of
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court
No. 29, District Lucknow for grant of
permission for renewal of passport, which
was rejected by means of order dated
21.12.2023 observing therein that this
Court has no jurisdiction for granting the
permission of renewal of passport.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant
further submits that the applicant has been
falsely implicated in Crime No. 621/2018,
under Sections 406 and 420 I.P.C., Police
Station Ashiyana, District Lucknow and in
that case, the applicant is already on bail. It
is submitted that, though the criminal case
pending against the present applicant is
petty in nature, but now a days such
criminal cases are also take a long time to
be decided finally and till then it will not be
proper either to withhold no objection or to
refuse the renewal/reissue of passport to the
applicant. She further submitted that in case
applicant, is acquitted in future, then loss,
which the applicant may suffer by not
going abroad for the purpose of her
professional work can not be compensated
in any manner. Such refusal also infringes
the applicant's constitutional right available
to her under Article 19 & 21 of the
Constitution of India.

7. In support of her argument, learned
counsel for the applicant has relied upon
the notification of Ministry of External
Affairs, New Delhi dated 25.08.1993,
which

"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 specified a period for which the
passport has to be issued; or

(ii) if no period either for the
issue of the passport for the travel abroad
4 All. Ms. Sapna @ Sapna Choudhary Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
575
is specified in such order, the passport
shall be issued for a period of one year;

(iii)
if
such
order
gives
permission to travel abroad for a period
less than one year, but does not specify the
period of 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 the period of
travel abroad specified in the order;

(b) any passport issued in terms
of (a)(ii) and (a)(iii) above can be further
renewed fr 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 f 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 passportissuing 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."

8. Thus, learned counsel for the
applicant submits that the impugned order
dated
21.12.2023
is
totally
illegal,
perverse and arbitrary as the same is
passed without application of judicial
mind and also without considering the
notification of Ministry of External Affairs,
Government
of
India,
New
Delhi,
therefore, the same is liable to be quashed.

9. On the other hand, learned counsel
for the Union of India has placed a
notification of the Government of India
dated 25.08.1993 (which has already been
quoted above) and an Office Memorandum
dated 10.10.2019 (which is being quoted
hereunder) issued by the Ministry of
External Affairs, Government of India,
New Delhi. He has also placed an order
passed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court
dated 02.02.2024 passed in Application
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No.839 of 2024
and submits that there is no restriction to
the learned trial court to direct for grant of
permission for renewal of passport. He
further submits that as per aforesaid
notification and order passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court, the impugned
order
dated
21.12.2023
passed
by
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court
No. 29, District Lucknow, on its face
appears to be passed without application of
judicial mind and without considering the
aforesaid notification. Thus, the impugned
order is liable to be quashed and authorities
may be directed to consider the case for
renewal of her passport. The Office
Memorandum dated 10.10.2019 is being
quoted hereunder:

***

Office Memorandum dated 10.10.2019
issued by the Ministry of External
Affairs, Government of India, New
Delhi:-

No. VI/401/1/5/2019
Government of India
Ministry of External Affairs
PSP Division
576 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

Patiala House Annexe, Tilak Marg

New Delhi, the l0th October 2019

OFFICE MEMORANDUM

Subject: Issue of passports to
applicants against whom criminal cases
are pending before a court of law in
India.

Reference
is
invited
to
Notification No. GSR 570(E) dated
25.8.1993 regarding issuance of passports
to
applicants
who
have
criminal
proceedings pending against them and
whose applications would attract the
provisions of clause (f) of sub-section (2)
of Section 6 of the Passports Act, 1967.

2. GSR 570(E) dated 25.8.1993
is reproduced below for reference:

"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 specified a period for which the
passport has to be issued; or

(ii) if no period either for the
issue of the passport for the travel abroad
is specified in such order, the passport
shall be issued for a period of one year;

(iii)
if
such
order
gives
permission to travel abroad for a period
less than one year, but does not specify
the period of 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 the period of
travel abroad specified in the order;

(b) any passport issued in terms
of (a)(ii) and (a)(iii) above can be further
renewed fr 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 f 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 passportissuing 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."
4 All. Ms. Sapna @ Sapna Choudhary Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
577

3. It may be noted that applicants
may be refused passports only on grounds
mentioned under Section 6(2) of the
Passports Act, 1967. Section 6(2)(f) of the
Act states that the passport authority shall
refuse to issue a passport or travel
document to an applicant on the ground
that proceedings in respect of an offence
alleged to have been committed by the
applicant arc pending before a criminal
court in India. GSR 570(E) dated 25.8.1993
was introduced to give relief to such
applicants
against
whom
criminal
proceedings are pending before any Court
of law in India but who may need to travel
abroad for some urgent business. With an
undertaking under GSR 570(E) and an
order from the Court, an applicant could be
issued a short validity passport of one year
validity for the period specified by the
Court.

4. It has been noticed that there
are an increasing number of references
being
received
regarding
passport
applications attracting Section 6(2)(f). It
has also been brought to Ministry's notice
that there are a number of complex issues
involved
while
processing
such
applications. During the proceedings in a
recent court case, the Hon'ble High Court
of Delhi in W.P. (CRL) No. 2844/2018
/CRL.M.A. 48674/2018 has directed that
guidelines be issued by the Ministry
reiterating the procedure for processing of
such applications and emphasizing that
such applications need to be processed with
due care and diligence.

5. In view of the above, the
following instructions may be adopted
while processing the passport applications
in respect of those applicants who may
have criminal proceedings pending before a
criminal court in India:

(i) The provisions of GSR 570
(E) may be strictly applied in all case. GSR
570 (E) is a statutory notification and
hence, forms part of the Rules. It is to be
noted that as per Section 5 (2) of the
Passports Act, 1967, the passport authority
shall be order in writing take a decision
whether to issue or refuse a passport, after
making such inquiry, if any, as it may
consider necessary. Moreover, Section 7 of
the Passports Act, provides that a passport
or travel document may be issued for a
shorter period than the prescribed period if
the passport authority, for reasons to be
communicated in writing to the applicant,
considers in any case that the passport or
travel document should be issued for a
shorter period. Rule 12 of the Passport
Rules, 1980 only states that an ordinary
passport shall be in force for a period of 10
years which implies that an ordinary
passport cannot be issued beyond a period
of 10 years.

(ii) Whenever an applicant is
submitting a 'No Objection Certificate'
(NOC) from a Court of law in India, the
applicant
should
be
advised
that
undertaking as per GSR 570(E) should be
complete in all respects and should mention
all the pending criminal cases against the
applicant. The undertaking will have a not
clearly stating that if any false or
incomplete information is submitted by an
applicant, then his passport application is
liable to be rejected.

(iii) Extant instructions clearly
lay down that such applications should be
processed on pre- Police Verification (PV)
mode. "Pre-PV" would be mandatory in all
cases of applications submitted with GSR
570(E) to ensure that the undertaking
submitted by the applicant is properly
matched with the criminal cases mentioned
578 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
in the Police Verification Report (PVR).
Hence, such applications should not be
accepted under Tatkaal nor such applications
be moved to "post-PV" mode or "No-PV"
mode without proper justification and
approval to be recorded in writing.

(iv) If an undertaking is incomplete
or misleading and the applicant is found to
have suppressed details of other criminal
cases against the applicant, a Show Cause
Notice should be issued to the applicant and
action initiated against that applicant as per
provisions of Section 12 of the Passports Act,
1967. If information that an applicant has
obtained a passport by making a false
submission or by suppressing material facts
comes to light after the passport has been
issued, the passport may be impounded or
revoked as per provision of Section 10 (3) (b)
of the Passports Act, 1967 after following the
due procedure.

(v) In case where the first police
verification (PV) is 'Adverse', secondary
police verification may be generated. While a
secondary PV is generated, it should be
accompanied by a detailed letter seeking
clarification regarding the pending criminal
cases against the applicant and the status of
these cases. Apart from generating secondary
PVR, the passport officers may, if considered
necessary, call for discreet enquiry through
the police authorities by sending the court
order submitted by the applicant or even seek
verification
from
other
government
agencies/departments, as the case may be.

(vi) In case where the secondary
Police Verification is also 'Adverse', it may
be examined whether the details brought
out in the police report match the
undertaking submitted by the applicant. It
may be noted that mere filing of FIRs and
cases under investigation do not come
under the purview of Section 6(2)(f) and
that criminal proceedings would only be
considered pending against an applicant if a
case has been registered before any Court
of law and the court has taken cognizance
of the same.

(vii) If the details given in the
police report and the undertaking submitted
by the applicant are matching, then the 'No
Objection Certificate' issued by a Court of
law submitted by the applicant would take
precedence over any 'Adverse' report
submitted by the police. In such cases, the
'Adverse' report may be overruled with the
written approval of the Passport Officer.

(viii) If the details given in the
PVR and the undertaking submitted by the
applicant are at variance, then a notice may
be issued to the applicant calling for
clarification and advising the applicant to
submit details of all pending criminal cases
as well as to submit a revised No Objection
Certificate (NOC).

(ix) If it is brought to the notice of
the authority that an applicant has criminal
proceedings arrayed against applicant before
several courts of law, then the applicant may
be advised to get NOC from all the concerned
court (s). Normally, the Court Order would
make a mention of the cases pending against
the applicant as well as the prayer made by
the applicant. This may be examined along
with the undertaking submitted by the
applicant and complaints or other court
orders, if any, that have been received against
the applicant.

(x) It may noted that GSR 570(E)
only exempts and applicant from the
operation of Section 6 (2)(f) and none of
the other sub-sections of Section 6(2) of the
Passports Act, 1967.
4 All. Ms. Sapna @ Sapna Choudhary Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
579

(xi) A revised Undertaking under
GSR 570(E) is attached at Annexure 'A'.

(xii) Passport Officers may issue an
internal SOP along the above lines so that
there is no confusion in handling of
applications that would attract provisions of
section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967.

6. The above instructions may be
noted for strict compliance with immediate
effect.

Annexure 'A' UNDERTAKING
(to be submitted on plain paper as per
provisions
of
GSR-570(E)
dated
25.08.1993)

I am applying/have applied for
passport with the following details:-

(a) Name :.....................................

(b) Date of Birth :.........................

(c) Father's Name :........................

(d) Mother's Name :......................

(e) Present Address :.....................

2. The Criminal case(s) with
following details is/are pending against me:

(if more than one case is pending,
details of all cases may be provided.

Additional
sheet
giving
complete
information may be attached)

(a) Case No. :................................

(b) Name of Court :......................

(c) Details of Investigating Agency
(Please provide details of Police station
Investigating Officer, etc.) :..............

(d)Last date of hearing :................

(e)Next date of hearing :...............

3. I hereby undertake that I shall, if
required by the Court concerned, appear
before it at any time during the continuance
in force of the passport so issued.

4. I am aware that it is an offence
under the Passports Act, 1967 to furnish
any false information or to suppress any
material information with a view to
obtaining a passport or any other travel
document.

5. The above information given
by me in this undertaking and enclosures is
true and I am solely responsible for its
accuracy.

(Signature of the Passport applicant)

Name.............................................

Mobile No....................................

Date:................

Place:...............
***

10. After considering the arguments as
advanced by learned counsel for the parties
as well as after perusal of record, this Court
finds that Under Article 19(1)(d) and
Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the
citizens of the country are entitled for
passport. In Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of
India 1978 (1) SCC 248, the Apex Court
has held that having passport is a
fundamental right of the citizen of India
and a citizen can not be deprived of such
fundamental right and the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in paragraph Nos. 214 and 215 was
pleased to observe as under:

214. In India, at any rate, we are
all certainly governed by our Constitution.
The fact that the affected petitioner may
not, as a result of a particular order, be
able to do something intended to be done
by her abroad cannot possibly make the
governmental
action
in
India
either
ineffective or immune from judicial scrutiny
or from an attack made on the ground of a
violation of a fundamental right which
inheres
in
an
Indian
citizen.
The
consequences
or
effects
upon
the
petitioner's possible actions or future
activities in other countries may be a factor
which may be weighed, where relevant,
with other relevant facts in a particular
580 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
case in judging the merits of the restriction
imposed. It will be relevant insofar as it
can be shown to have some connection with
public
or
national
interests
when
determining the merits of an order passed.
It may show how she has become a "person
aggrieved" with a cause of action, by a
particular order involving her personal
freedom. But, such considerations cannot
curtail or impair the scope or operation of
fundamental
rights
of
citizens
as
protections against unjustifiable actions of
their own Government. Nor can they, by
their
own
force,
protect
legally
unjustifiable actions of the Government of
our country against attacks in our own
courts.

215. In order to apply the tests
contained in Articles 14 and 19 of the
Constitution, we have to consider the
objects for which the exercise of inherent
rights recognised by Article 21 of the
Constitution are restricted as well as the
procedure by which these restrictions are
sought to be imposed. Both substantive and
procedural laws and actions taken under
them will have to pass tests imposed by
Articles 14 and 19 whenever facts justifying
the invocation of either of these articles
may be disclosed. For example, an
international singer or dancer may well be
able to complain of an unjustifiable
restriction on professional activity by a
denial of a passport. In such a case,
violations of both Articles 21 and 19(1)(g)
may both be put forward making it
necessary for the authorities concerned to
justify the restriction imposed, by showing
satisfaction of tests of validity contemplated
by each of these two articles."

11. Thus, this Court after considering
the aforesaid judgment of Hon'ble the
Supreme Court in the case of Maneka
Gandhi (Supra) this court is of the view
that right to travel abroad is a part of the
personal liberty guaranteed under Article
21 and 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of
India and in addition thereto a careful
reading of provisions of the Passport Act
and the Notification dated 25.08.1993
alongwith the Office Memorandum dated
10.10.2019 in the light of it's legislative
backgrounds as mentioned above, it is clear
that passport or travel document of a
person, who is facing trial can be refused
by
the
authority
concerned
during
pendency of his criminal case, but there is
no statutory bar for giving no objection by
the court concerned. No hard and fast
straight jacket formula can be laid down
regarding issuance of permission or giving
no objection by the court concerned for
issuance of passport. It is always discretion
of the court concerned and depend upon the
facts and circumstances of each case, act
and conduct of the accused as well as
nature of alleged offence committed by
him/her and stage of trial, etc. Some time
on account of enmity or ill will one party
enmesh the other party in a frivolous
criminal case to settle his personal score,
therefore, in the interest of justice, it is
necessary to consider all aspects of the
matter
and surrounding circumstances
while granting or refusing the no objection
for renewal or reissue of passport or travel
documents by the court concerned or by the
authorities concerned and the trial in the
above case is not likely to conclude very
soon. These were relevant factors to be
considered by the learned Trial Court while
passing the impugned order.

The learned trial court had
completely ignored the Notification issued
by Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi
dated 25.08.1993 as well as Office
Memorandum dated 10.10.2019 issued by
4 All. Rupesh Kumar Srivastava @ Nirmal Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
581
the
Ministry
of
External
Affairs,
Government of India, New Delhi (referred
above) while passing the impugned order
and had rejected the application of the
applicant for grant of permission for
renewal/re-issue of passport, thus, the
impugned order is not sustainable in the
eyes of law, therefore, the same is liable
to be set aside/reversed.

12. In view of above, in the light of
the notification dated 25.08.1993 and the
Office Memorandum dated 10.10.2019 as
well as the judgment passed by Hon'ble
the Supreme Court in the case of Maneka
Gandhi (Supra) and considering the
larger mandate of the Article 19 and 21 of
the Constitution of India, the impugned
order
dated
21.12.2023
passed
by
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Court No. 29, District Lucknow, by
means
of
which
application
for
renewal/re-issue of passport of appliant
was rejected, is hereby set aside and
reveresed.

13.

Accordingly,
the
instant
application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is
allowed with following directions:

(i) The applicant shall move a
fresh application along with certified
copy of this order for renewal/re-issue of
her
passport
before
the
concerned
Regional Passport Officer within 20 days
from the date of this order.

(ii) In case such application is
moved by the applicant, within the time
stipulated by this Court, the concerned
Regional Passport Officer/authority shall
decide the application and pass an order
for renewal/re-issue of the passport of the
applicant within 01 month from the date
of production of certified copy of this
order, after completing the due formalities
in accordance with law.

(iii) The applicant shall inform
and take permission from the trial court
concerned before going abroad and she
shall appear before the trial Court on the
date fixed as directed by the trial Court and
she shall be bound by the terms and
conditions imposed by the trial court.

(iv) Let a copy of this order be given
to Sri Surya Bhan Pandey, learned Sr.
Advocate and Deputy Solicitor General of
India appearing for Union of India and Sri
Ashok Kumar Srivastava, learned A.G.A.
for
the
State
for
information
and
communication
to
the
authorities
concerned.
----------
(2024) 4 ILRA 581
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 09.04.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHAMIM AHMED, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 3163 of 2024

Rupesh Kumar Srivastava @ Nirmal
Srivastava ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Mukesh Kumar Tewari

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

(A) Criminal Law - Quashing of Order -
Fair
Trial
-
The
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Sections 207 & ,482 -
Inherent power - Section 311 - Power to
summon material witness, or examine
person present, Section 233 - Entering