Pendency Of Criminal Case U/S 498A IPC Not Ground To Deny Permission To Travel Abroad For Haj: Rajasthan High Court

Rajasthan High Court allowed an application by an accused charged under Section 498A, IPC, to travel to Mecca-Madina for performing the religious rituals of Haj, for a period of two months, opining that denying permission to travel abroad for religious purposes, owing to pendency of criminal case under the provision amounted to violation of right under Article 21.

While issuing a judicial direction to all subordinate courts, the bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that whenever an application was submitted by an accused to travel abroad, clear order of granting/not granting the permission shall be passed, to aid the Passport Authority to take appropriate decisions.

“It is observed by this Court on many occasions that because of non-passing of clear and specific orders, the Passport Authority is not in a position to take appropriate decision. Henceforth, it is expected from all the subordinate courts to pass clear and specific orders whenever such application is submitted by the accused seeking permission to go abroad to avoid any kind of confusion in the mind of the Passport Authority,” said the Court.

The petitioner was facing trial for offences under Sections 498-A and 406, IPC, when an application was submitted by him seeking permission to travel to Mecca-Medina for performing Haj. This application was rejected by both the trial court as well as the Passport Authority of India on technical counts. Hence, petition was filed before the Court.

While terming the action on part of the respondent as violation of right to liberty of the petitioner under Article 21, the Court held that pendency of criminal case under the aforesaid provisions could not be a ground to deny permission to travel abroad for religious purposes.

"Pendency of criminal case under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC cannot be a ground to deny permission to the petitioner to travel abroad for the religious purpose, i.e., Haj, Umra Jiyarat. Such action on the part of the respondent amounts to violation of the Fundamental Right to personal liberty of the petitioner contained under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Denial of permission to go abroad amounts to violation of Fundamental Right to a citizen contained under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Each and every citizen of India has a right to go abroad..."

Reference was made to the Supreme Court case of Maneka Gandhi v Union of India wherein the Apex Court held that even the notification dated August 25, 1993, by the Ministry of External Affairs provided a procedure by which any person against whom a criminal case was pending could be allowed to depart from India, if permission was granted by the competent court.

In this light, the Court held that a balance was required to be drawn between the right of petitioner to travel abroad and right of the prosecution to try the petitioner. Paramount consideration had to be given to the conditions imposed upon such a person who had been granted such permission. In case such conditions were violated, appropriate coercive action could be taken.

Hence, the petition was allowed, granting permission to the petitioner to travel for Haj.

Title: Mohammad Muslim v The Union of India

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 256

Click Here To Read/Download Order