A significant ruling by the Punjab & Haryana High Court has clarified that prolonged delays in criminal proceedings cannot be used to unjustly restrict a citizen’s right to travel abroad for livelihood, even when facing pending charges. The Court modified a trial court’s order limiting passport renewal to one year, holding that such restrictions must be proportionate and grounded in actual risk of flight - not procedural inertia.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Vikash Ahlawat, is facing criminal proceedings under Sections 306/34 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, arising from FIR No. 224 dated 07.06.2021 registered at Police Station Budana, District Karnal. He was granted anticipatory bail by this Court on 17.11.2021 in CRM-M-34436-2021. There is no allegation that he ever misused the bail concession.
Key Facts
- The petitioner was employed abroad in Singapore and required frequent international travel for his job.
- His passport was due to expire, necessitating renewal and a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the trial court.
- On 12.01.2022, the challan was submitted to the trial court.
- Charges were framed only on 04.02.2026 - nearly four years after the challan was filed.
- The prosecution witness statements were scheduled for recording on 03.07.2026.
- On 21.05.2024, this Court had previously granted permission to the petitioner to travel abroad for livelihood purposes.
- On 03.04.2026, the trial court granted permission for passport renewal but restricted the validity to one year only.
- The petitioner’s family, including his parents and children, reside permanently in India.
Procedural History
- 07.06.2021: FIR registered under Sections 306/34 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act.
- 17.11.2021: Petitioner granted anticipatory bail by this Court.
- 12.01.2022: Challan submitted to trial court.
- 21.05.2024: This Court permitted petitioner to travel abroad for employment.
- 04.02.2026: Charges framed - four years after challan submission.
- 03.04.2026: Trial Court allowed passport renewal but limited validity to one year.
- 29.04.2026: Present criminal revision petition decided by the High Court.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought modification of the trial court’s order dated 03.04.2026 to extend the validity of his renewed passport to ten years, consistent with standard issuance norms, to enable uninterrupted employment abroad.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a trial court may restrict passport renewal to one year solely due to pending criminal proceedings, when there is no evidence of misuse of bail and the delay in trial is attributable to the court’s own backlog, thereby infringing the petitioner’s right to earn livelihood.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Counsel argued that the one-year restriction was arbitrary and disproportionate. He emphasized that the petitioner had consistently appeared before the court, maintained strong family ties in India, and required long-term international travel for employment. He relied on the principle that the right to livelihood under Article 21 cannot be curtailed due to undue delay in trial, especially when the accused has not evaded justice.
For the Respondent
The Additional Advocate General accepted notice and conceded that the charges were framed after a four-year delay, with no explanation provided by the trial court. He did not cite any instance of the petitioner absconding or misusing bail. He acknowledged that the petitioner’s employment abroad was legitimate and that the restriction was not justified in light of the prolonged procedural delay.
The Court's Analysis
The Court observed that the delay in framing charges - four years after challan submission - was attributable to the trial court’s own inaction, not the petitioner’s conduct. The Court noted that the petitioner had not only complied with all bail conditions but had also been previously permitted to travel abroad for livelihood purposes.
"No such instance has been highlighted by learned State counsel to allege that petitioner ever in the past misused the concession of bail by remaining absent from the Court."
The Court further emphasized that the petitioner’s family roots in India - parents and children residing here - demonstrated his strong ties to the jurisdiction and low risk of flight. The restriction of passport validity to one year was held to be an unreasonable burden on the petitioner’s right to livelihood under Article 21, particularly when the state had failed to expedite trial proceedings.
The Court held that the right to travel abroad for employment cannot be denied or arbitrarily limited merely because of pending criminal proceedings, especially when the delay is systemic and the accused has not demonstrated any propensity to evade justice.
The Verdict
The petition was allowed. The impugned order dated 03.04.2026 was modified to extend the validity of the petitioner’s renewed passport to ten years. All other conditions imposed by the trial court, including the requirement to appear before the court whenever required, remain in force. The petitioner is bound by these conditions.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Delay in Trial Cannot Justify Restrictive Travel Orders
- Practitioners may now argue that prolonged procedural delays by the court cannot be weaponized to impose arbitrary travel restrictions on accused persons.
- Courts must distinguish between genuine flight risk and systemic inefficiency when imposing conditions on passport renewal.
Right to Livelihood Trumps Procedural Inertia
- The right to earn livelihood under Article 21 is a core component of personal liberty and cannot be suspended due to court-caused delays.
- Where an accused has consistently appeared, maintained family ties in India, and has no history of bail violation, passport renewal should be granted for the standard period (5 or 10 years).
Proportionality Must Guide Judicial Conditions
- Any restriction on travel must be proportionate to the nature of the offence and the accused’s conduct.
- A blanket one-year limit on passport renewal in pending cases is now legally untenable absent specific, documented risk of non-appearance.
