The High Court of Karnataka has ruled that a person facing pending criminal proceedings is ineligible for the issuance or renewal of a normal validity passport under the Passports Act, 1967. However, the Court clarified that such an applicant may approach the Passport Authority for a “Short Validity Passport” subject to court permission. Simultaneously, the Court directed the release of a seized mobile phone to the accused, reiterating that keeping electronic devices in police custody indefinitely serves no purpose.
Justice M. Nagaprasanna, presiding over the matter, allowed the criminal petition in part, setting aside the lower court’s refusal to release the mobile phone while directing the petitioner to follow the statutory procedure for the passport.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Smt. Surumi Shiji, is arraigned as an accused in Crime No. 33/2024, registered by the City Central Crime Branch (West), Bengaluru. The charges involve offences punishable under Sections 120B (criminal conspiracy), 420 (cheating), and 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The police subsequently filed a charge sheet in C.C.No.23988/2025.
During the investigation, the police seized the petitioner’s passport and a Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra mobile phone. The petitioner filed an application under Sections 451 and 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) before the I Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate seeking the release of these items to travel abroad.
The Magistrate dismissed the application on October 10, 2025. A revision petition filed before the LII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, was also rejected on December 16, 2025, primarily on the ground that the petitioner was involved in a crime. Challenging these orders, the petitioner approached the High Court.
Arguments
Sri R. Shashidhara, the learned counsel for the petitioner, argued that the passport and mobile phone should be released to enable the petitioner to travel abroad. He sought a direction to the first respondent (State) to release the seized items.
Sri H. Shanthi Bhushan, the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India (DSGI) appearing for the Regional Passport Office (Respondent No. 3), contended that Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967, acts as a bar to the issuance of a normal validity passport when criminal proceedings are pending. He submitted that the petitioner must approach the Passport Authorities for a “Short Validity Passport” as per the relevant notifications.
Court’s Observations and Analysis
On the Release of Passport
The High Court extensively referred to its earlier order in W.P.No.28203/2023, which analyzed the legal framework regarding passport issuance to individuals facing criminal trials.
The Court examined Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, which mandates that the passport authority shall refuse to issue a passport if proceedings in respect of an alleged offence are pending before a criminal court in India. The Court also referred to the G.S.R. 570(E) Notification dated August 25, 1993, issued by the Central Government. This notification allows for the issuance of a Short Validity Passport to such citizens, provided they produce orders from the concerned court permitting them to depart from India.
The Court observed that there is no distinction between the “issuance,” “re-issuance,” or “renewal” of a passport when applying the rigours of Section 6(2)(f).
“The unmistakable inference that can be drawn is that, there is no difference between renewal, re-issuance or first issuance of the passport under Section 6(2) of the Act. Every issuance, re-issuance or renewal will have to meet the requirements or pass through the rigours of Section 6.”
The Bench further remarked:
“As long as Section 6(2)(f) stares at any application, be it for fresh, renewal or re-issuance, such application cannot be directed to be granted diluting the rigor of Section 6(2)(f). The applicant is under a cloud, ‘if an applicant of the kind in the case at hand, wants to walk over the clouds; the cloud over such applicant must walk away.'”
Consequently, the Court held that the application filed under Sections 451 and 457 Cr.P.C. seeking the simple release of the passport was not the correct legal recourse given the statutory bar.
On the Release of Mobile Phone
Regarding the seized mobile phone, the Court relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat (2002). The Apex Court in that case held that powers under Section 451 Cr.P.C. should be exercised expeditiously to ensure that valuable articles are not kept in police custody for years, where they may deteriorate or become useless.
Justice Nagaprasanna noted:
“In the light of the afore-quoted judgment of the Apex Court, the mobile phone of the petitioner shall be released by way of interim custody to the petitioner by imposing appropriate conditions.”
Decision
The High Court passed the following orders:
- Passport: The Court held that the orders of the lower courts rejecting the release of the passport did not merit consideration as the application itself was a “nullity in law” due to the provisions of the Passports Act. The Court directed the petitioner to approach the Authorised Officer of the Regional Passport Office seeking a Short Validity Passport as per Section 6(2)(f) of the Act and the GSR 570 Notification.
- Mobile Phone: The petition was allowed regarding the mobile phone. The impugned orders dated 10.10.2025 and 16.12.2025 were quashed insofar as they related to the mobile device. The concerned Court was directed to release the mobile phone to the petitioner after imposing appropriate conditions as laid down in the Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai case.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Smt. Surumi Shiji vs. State of Karnataka & Others
- Case No.: Criminal Petition No. 180 of 2026
- Coram: Justice M. Nagaprasanna
- Counsel for Petitioner: Sri R. Shashidhara
- Counsel for Respondents: Sri K. Nageshwarappa (HCGP), Sri H. Shanthi Bhushan (DSGI)
