The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) has ruled that a trial court cannot deny a No Objection Certificate (NOC) for travel abroad solely on the ground of a pending criminal trial if there is no material on record to suggest the applicant is a flight risk. Justice Pankaj Bhatia quashed a lower court’s refusal order and directed the passport authority to issue a passport to the applicant for a full term of ten years.
The Court held that since the further proceedings of the criminal trial had already been stayed by the High Court and no evidence existed to indicate the applicant would flee justice, the rejection of the travel permission was unsustainable.
Background of the Case
The applicant, Laxmi Kant Bajpai, filed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging an order dated August 27, 2025. The impugned order had rejected his request for an NOC to travel abroad and for the issuance of a passport.
Bajpai is an accused in Case Crime No. 676 of 2019, involving charges under Sections 420 (Cheating), 406 (Criminal Breach of Trust), 323 (Voluntarily causing hurt), 504 (Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace), and 506 (Criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Prior to this, the applicant had approached the High Court seeking to quash these proceedings (Application U/S 482 No. 5604 of 2024). In that matter, the High Court had stayed the proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 375 of 2020, observing that the dispute appeared to be “essentially of a civil in nature.”
Despite this stay, the applicant faced difficulties in obtaining a fresh passport. The police refused to issue a clearance due to the pending case. Subsequently, he applied to the trial court for permission to travel abroad and for the requisite NOC. The trial court rejected this application, reasoning that despite the stay order, the applicant posed a “flight risk” that would be detrimental to the criminal proceedings.
Legal Submissions and Government Clarifications
The Court examined the legal framework governing passport refusal, specifically Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967, which allows for refusal if criminal proceedings are pending. However, the Court also considered the Ministry of External Affairs’ Notification GSR 570 (E) dated August 25, 1993, and subsequent Office Memorandums dated October 10, 2019, and December 6, 2024.
The Court highlighted the Office Memorandum of December 6, 2024, which clarifies that the requirement is not for a “passport NOC” per se, but rather permission from the court to depart from India.
“It may be noted that there is no such provision for seeking permission/NOC from the court concerned for issuance of passport; instead it is permission to depart from India,” the Memorandum stated.
Reliance was also placed on the Division Bench judgment in Mohd. Talha vs. Union of India (2025), which established that if an applicant secures permission from the concerned court to travel abroad, they are exempted from the operation of Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act.
Court’s Observations and Decision
Justice Pankaj Bhatia observed that, given the clarifications from the Ministry, the trial court was required to process the application based on the materials on record to determine if travel permission should be granted.
The High Court found that the trial court erred in assuming a flight risk without evidence. Justice Bhatia noted:
“As the further proceedings have been stayed by this court… it was incumbent upon the trial court to have granted the NOC for travel abroad, unless it recorded material to suggest that the criminal proceedings of the applicant or his past history, would point out and suggest that the applicant would be at a flight risk.”
The Bench explicitly stated:
“No such material existed before the trial court to form such an opinion, as such, the order dated 27.08.2025 cannot be sustained and is quashed.”
Consequently, the Court issued the following directions:
- Permission to Travel: The applicant is permitted to travel abroad.
- Passport Issuance: The passport authority is directed to process the application for a fresh passport for a regular term of ten years, “unless there is any other hindrance.”
- Renewal Protection: The passport renewal shall not be refused solely on the ground of the pendency of Case No. 375 of 2020.
The Court concluded by clarifying that it was exercising its jurisdiction to grant permission because the underlying proceedings (the quashing petition) were pending before it, consistent with the Division Bench’s ruling that permission must be sought from the court where proceedings are pending.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Laxmi Kant Bajpai Versus State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another
- Case Number: APPLICATION U/S 482 No. 10778 of 2025
- bench: Justice Pankaj Bhatia
- Counsel for Applicant: Shashank Tilhari, Anurudh Kumar Singh
- Counsel for Opposite Party: G.A., S. B. Pandey (DSGI), Varun Pandey
