Pendency of criminal case no ground to refuse passport renewal to foreigner: Rajasthan High Court

Jaipur: The Rajasthan High Court has held that the pendency of a criminal case cannot be a ground to deny the release or renewal of a passport, even to a foreign national, ruling that the right to travel abroad and to hold a valid passport are facets of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and extend equally to non-citizens facing trial in India.

Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed that any arbitrary or unlawful denial of an individual’s passport amounts to deprivation of the fundamental right to travel abroad under Article 21, and that the protection of right to life with dignity extends beyond borders to safeguard all human beings, including foreigners facing trial in this country.

The Court observed:

“This Court opines that pendency of a criminal case cannot be a ground to deny passport facilities including its renewal, to the petitioner since her right to personal liberty not only includes her right to travel abroad but also her right to possess and hold a valid passport.”

The petition had been filed by Saisuda Chuennok, a citizen of Thailand, assailing an order dated 27 January 2023 of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Economic Offences), Jaipur Metropolitan-II, by which her application under Section 451 CrPC for release of her passport for the purpose of its renewal had been rejected.

The petitioner had arrived from Bangkok to Jaipur on 10 July 2022 by Air Asia Flight FD-130, and was intercepted at the Jaipur International Airport in possession of gold jewellery weighing 575.100 grams valued at Rs. 33,07,773. A criminal complaint was filed against her under Sections 132 and 135 of the Customs Act, 1962, her statements were recorded under Section 108 of the Act, and her passport, issued by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Thailand on 7 January 2020, was seized. The passport expired on 6 January 2025.

Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Arvind Bhadu with Mr. Mohit Pareek, submitted that the petitioner is on bail and is not in a position to travel to her motherland without possession of her passport and its renewal, and that her status as a foreign national could not, by itself, be a valid ground for the trial court to deny release of the document.

Counsel for the respondent opposed the prayer, contending that the petitioner is a habitual offender involved in the smuggling of gold who, in her statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act, had admitted to travelling to India on four prior occasions for the same purpose. It was submitted that she had misused the liberty of bail by failing to appear before the trial court on 7 January 2025, leading to forfeiture of her bail bonds, and that she remained absconding till 14 May 2026. The apprehension, it was urged, was that on renewal she would travel abroad with minimal chances of returning to face trial.

The Court rejected that apprehension as a ground for refusal. It made reference to the Supreme Court decisions in Sunil Batra v Delhi Administration, K.S. Puttaswamy v Union of India, Sumit Mehta v State of NCT of Delhi, Maneka Gandhi v Union of India, and Satish Chandra Verma v Union of India to hold that the right to travel abroad is an important basic human right that nourishes the independent and self-determining character of the individual, and that any deprivation must be effected only by a just, fair and reasonable procedure.

The Court also relied on the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Mahesh Kumar Agarwal v Union of India, decided in SLP (Civil) No. 17769/2025 on 19 December 2025, where it had been held that the pendency of a criminal case does not place an absolute bar on the renewal of a passport, and that the legitimate purpose of Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967 — to ensure that an accused remains amenable to the jurisdiction of the criminal court — can be served by conditions imposed by the trial court rather than by an indefinite denial of the passport itself.

Turning to the State’s concern that a Thai national once allowed out of the country may not return, the Court noted that the regulatory framework now applicable to foreigners in India itself supplies the safeguard. Clause 5 of the Immigration and Foreigners Order, 2025, framed under the Foreigners Act, 2025, expressly empowers the Immigration Officer to refuse permission to a foreigner to depart from India where the foreigner’s presence is required by any court, or where the departure is otherwise not in the public interest. The Court also referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Frank Vitus v Narcotics Control Bureau, (2025) 3 SCC 1, which clarified that the power to regulate the departure of a foreigner facing a criminal charge lies independently with the civil authority under the Foreigners regime, and that on grant of bail to a foreigner the criminal court must direct that the order be communicated to the concerned Registration Officer.

The Court concluded:

“In the considered opinion of this Court, registration of an FIR or pendency of any criminal case against the applicant cannot be treated as a valid ground for refusal of her prayer seeking renewal of her passport. Denial of such permission certainly amounts to violation of fundamental rights of any person guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”

Allowing the petition, the Court quashed the order of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Economic Offences), Jaipur Metropolitan-II, dated 27 January 2023 and directed the trial court to release the petitioner’s passport for renewal by the authorities concerned. The Court clarified that the petitioner shall not travel abroad without prior permission of the trial court, and directed that the order be communicated to the Immigration Officer in terms of the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025, the Immigration and Foreigners Rules, 2025, and the Immigration and Foreigners Order, 2025, for taking appropriate steps. The stay application and all pending applications also stood disposed of.

Title: Saisuda Chuennok v Union of India

Case No.: S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 5589/2023

Citation: [2026:RJ-JP:21668]

Counsel for petitioner: Mr. Arvind Bhadu with Mr. Mohit Pareek

Counsel for respondent: Mr. Banwari Lal Takhar