Passport issuance during criminal proceedings depends on court stage, with structured safeguards balancing travel liberty and trial attendance.

Pendency of criminal proceedings does not automatically bar passport issuance. Under the Passports Act, refusal may arise only where proceedings are pending before a criminal court, while a mere investigation stage does not require magistrate permission and the passport authority may decide the application. Where court permission is needed, the criminal court should apply objective factors, including the stage of the case, likely trial duration, antecedents and conduct, seriousness of the offence, risk of absconding, means of securing attendance, and the period of travel or passport validity. These safeguards are meant to balance personal liberty with securing the accused's presence at trial.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether pendency of a criminal proceeding bars issuance of a passport and when permission of the criminal court is required; (ii) what parameters should guide the criminal court while granting permission for issuance of a passport or travel abroad during pendency of criminal proceedings.

Issue (i): Whether pendency of a criminal proceeding bars issuance of a passport and when permission of the criminal court is required.

Analysis: The right to travel abroad is part of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, but it remains subject to procedure established by law. Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967 authorises refusal where proceedings in respect of an offence are pending before a criminal court. The statutory notification issued under Section 22 of the Passports Act, 1967 exempts such applicants from the operation of Section 6(2)(f) if they produce an order of the criminal court permitting departure from India. If only investigation is pending and cognizance has not been taken, there is no criminal proceeding pending before a criminal court and the passport authority may decide the application without requiring magistrate permission.

Conclusion: Pendency of a criminal case before a court may require court permission, but a mere investigation stage does not bar the passport authority from considering the application.

Issue (ii): What parameters should guide the criminal court while granting permission for issuance of a passport or travel abroad during pendency of criminal proceedings.

Analysis: The absence of clear statutory yardsticks can result in subjective decision-making, so the court laid down guiding parameters to balance the applicant's liberty to travel abroad and the need to secure the accused's during trial. Relevant factors include the stage of the proceedings, likely time for trial, antecedents and conduct, gravity of the offence, risk of absconding, means of securing attendance, and the period for which travel or passport validity is to be granted. These parameters are not exhaustive and other safeguards may be added where necessary.

Conclusion: The criminal court must apply the stated factors to decide whether permission should be granted and for what period, with suitable safeguards to secure the accused's presence.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was disposed of by directing the petitioner to seek magistrate permission only if a final report had been filed and cognizance taken, while leaving the passport authority free to decide the application if the matter was still only under investigation, and permitting the petitioner to submit an explanation for consideration.

Ratio Decidendi: The pendency of criminal proceedings affects passport issuance only to the extent contemplated by the Passports Act and the statutory exemption notification, and where court permission is required, it must be granted on objective, structured criteria balancing liberty and the need to ensure attendance at trial.

---