An FIR is registered against you, or a criminal case is grinding on in a trial court, and you need to travel abroad for work, study, a wedding, or medical treatment. The fear is automatic: surely a pending case means you cannot leave the country. The legal position is more reassuring than most people assume. The right to travel abroad is part of the right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution, a principle the Supreme Court settled in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D. Ramarathnam. A pending criminal case does not, by itself, take that right away.
What a pending case does is trigger specific legal mechanisms that can restrict travel: impounding of your passport, a condition in your bail order, or a Look Out Circular. Each of these has rules, and courts have repeatedly struck down restrictions imposed casually or without reasons. If you are an accused, a witness, or simply someone with an old case still open, this piece explains when you can travel, who can actually stop you, and how to get a restriction lifted.
The Right, and the One Statute That Can Limit It
Because the right to travel abroad sits inside Article 21, it can be curtailed only by a fair procedure established by law. That law is the Passports Act, 1967. Section 10(3) lists the grounds on which the passport authority may impound or revoke a passport, and clause (e) is the one that matters when a criminal case is pending[1].
The passport authority may impound or cause to be impounded or revoke a passport or travel document if proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the holder of the passport or travel document are pending before a criminal court in India.
Two words in that clause do a lot of work. The power is discretionary, the authority may impound, not must, and Section 10(5) requires it to record a brief statement of reasons before doing so[1]. The existence of a case opens the door to action; it does not slam it on you automatically.
The right to travel abroad might have numerous reasons. One of such is related to his fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India which gives him a right to engage in any occupation whether within or outside India. The accused right to work and movement must not be unjustly restricted solely upon the pendency of the FIR. Such restrictions are not only arbitrary but is against the settled proposition of law. The fundamental right of the person cannot be curtailed since, the personal liberty of the accused does not only include to travel abroad but also the accused has a Constitutional Right to practice any profession of his choice. The law presumes an accused to be innocent till his guilt is proved. As a presumable innocent person, the accused is entitled to all the fundamental rights including right to liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
A Pending Case Is a Trigger, Not an Automatic Bar
Courts have drawn this distinction sharply. As far back as 1987, the Madras High Court in Sri-La-Sri Arunagirinathar v. State held that a person holding a valid passport could not be stopped at the airport by a mere oral order of the state government citing a pending criminal case. The court noted the man had in fact travelled abroad earlier while the same case was pending, and ruled that the state could only pass its information to the passport authority for it to consider action under Section 10[2].
The Madras High Court reinforced this in S.M. Shoba v. Joint Secretary (PSP), refusing a wife''s plea to have her in-laws'' passports impounded simply because a dowry case was pending. The court held that a passport cannot be impounded merely because a criminal case is pending, and that a case is treated as pending before a criminal court only once cognizance is taken or a charge sheet filed, not at the bare complaint stage[3].
The Madhya Pradesh High Court put the principle most usefully in Navin Kumar Sonkar v. Union of India, where a passport was impounded under Section 10(3)(e) over a Section 498A dowry case in which the man, a brother of the husband, had been roped in along with the whole family. The court held that the pendency of a case may be a cause to initiate action, but cannot be the reason for impounding by itself. The authority must look at the nature of the case and whether the person is likely to abscond or evade the court, and record those reasons[4]. An impounding order that says nothing more than "a criminal case is pending" is liable to be quashed.
Who Can Actually Stop You, and Who Cannot
This is the part most people get wrong. The police, a trial court, and the passport authority do not have the same powers. The Punjab and Haryana High Court in Capt. Anila Bhatia v. State of Haryana, following the Supreme Court in Suresh Nanda v. CBI, set out the line clearly[5].
While the police may have power to seize a passport under Section 102 Criminal Procedure Code, it does not have power to retain or impound the same, because that can only be done by the passport authority under Section 10(3) of the Passports Act. The trial Court cannot impound a passport.
The distinction is between seizing and impounding. The police may seize a passport in the course of investigation, but holding on to it amounts to impounding, and only the passport authority can do that, after giving you a hearing. Because the Passports Act is a special law, it overrides the general power of a court to impound documents under Section 104 of the Criminal Procedure Code. So a bail order that makes you surrender your passport indefinitely effectively impounds it through the back door, which Capt. Anila Bhatia held the trial court cannot do[5].
Bail Conditions and Surrendering Your Passport
A court can still legitimately restrict your travel as a bail condition, but it has to do so with care, not as a routine clause. In Capt. Anila Bhatia, an Air India pilot''s bail condition requiring her to surrender her passport was set aside precisely because it was imposed mechanically and crippled her livelihood. The court held that an accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty and keeps the fundamental rights that go with that presumption, so a court must weigh the risk of the person fleeing against the hardship of the restriction[5].
Where a passport has already been surrendered, courts release it once the justification fades. In Acharya Bal Krishna v. CBI, the Uttarakhand High Court ordered the return of a passport that had been deposited only for the duration of the investigation, noting that the investigation was complete, the trial was on, the charges were not grave, and the accused, a well-known figure with a large business in India, was unlikely to abscond[6]. The recurring themes are the gravity of the offence and your record of attending court, not the mere fact of a case.
Getting Permission to Travel During a Pending Case
Even when a case is pending, you can usually travel by taking the right permissions. A 1993 Central Government notification under the Passports Act allows a passport to be issued, and travel to be permitted, to a person facing pending criminal proceedings if the criminal court grants permission. The Rajasthan High Court applied this in Lucky Jain v. State of Rajasthan, where a 72-year-old man who had been granted probation wanted to visit his children in Australia and Canada. The court directed the passport authority to ignore the mere registration of the criminal case and process his application, since there was no adverse material against him[7]. In practice, the route is to apply to the trial court for permission to travel for a defined period, offering to deposit a bond or surety and to return by a fixed date.
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case titled as Mr. Amardeep Singh Bedi v. Union of India, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2651228 observed that mere pendency of a criminal case does not automatically disqualify an individual from exercising their right to seek long-term opportunities abroad. The relevant paragraph of the judgment is reproduced herein under:
10. In the present case the Petitioner has been granted anticipatory bail in connection with the FIRs filed against him in 2013. The condition for this bail is that the Petitioner must join the investigation whenever directed by the Investigating Officer. Notably, there is no restriction imposed by the Trial Court on the Petitioner's travel. It is also pertinent that, aside from these two FIRs, the Petitioner has no other criminal cases against him. Moreover, as per the quasi-judicial proceedings conducted by the RPFC, the Petitioner has fulfilled his liability by making the required provident fund deposits under the EPF Act.
11. Furthermore, the Petitioner holds a valid passport, renewed until 2029, which enables him to travel outside India. He also possesses a valid multiple-entry Visa for Canada, allowing him entry into that country. However, his present concern arises from the specific requirement under Canada's Start-up Visa Programme, which requires the submission of a PCC from the applicant's country of residence.
12. In light of the facts disclosed by the Respondent, it is evident that the sole ground for denying the PCC is the existence of pending FIRs against the Petitioner as per the report of Respondent No. 2. However, it must be emphasized that mere pendency of a criminal case does not automatically disqualify an individual from exercising their right to seek long-term opportunities abroad. While Respondent No. 1 - the Ministry of External Affairs, is correct to point out their obligation to provide accurate information to the foreign authorities, this responsibility does not extend to unjustly curtailing the Petitioner's right to apply for a long-term Visa.
The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case titled as Ganeshprabhu v. Regional Passport Officer, (Madras)(Madurai Bench) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2688143 observed that the mere registration of a crime does not negate the petitioner application for police clearance certificate. The relevant para of judgement is reproduced as under:
12. It is a settled proposition of law that mere registration of a crime does not invoke either Section 6 or section 10 of the Passports Act, and negating the petitioner's application for police clearance certificate exclusively for the purpose of obtaining a visa to travel abroad would amount to denial of fundamental rights available to him under Part III of the Constitution of India. This Court is duty bound to protect the fundamental rights of the citizens of India. A similar case has been dealt with by the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in the case of EJO P.J., v. Regional Passport Office, Ministry of External Affairs, Govt. Of India, in W.P.(C)No.9369 of 2023 and by an order dated 07.06.2023 and a favourable order was passed to the petitioner therein by the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case titled as Mahesh Kumar Agarwal Vs Union of India (SC) Law Finder Doc ID # 282363 2025 has observed as follow:
20. It must also be noted that denial of renewal of a passport does not operate in a vacuum. This Court has repeatedly held in a catena of judgements that the right to travel abroad and the right to hold a passport are facets of the right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Any restriction on that right must be fair, just and reasonable, and must bear a rational nexus with a legitimate purpose.
22. It is important to keep distinct the possession of a valid passport and the act of travelling abroad. A passport is a civil document that enables its holder to seek a visa and, subject to other laws and orders, to cross international borders. Whether a person who is on bail or facing trial may actually leave the country is a matter for the criminal court, which can grant or withhold permission, impose conditions, insist on undertakings, or refuse leave altogether. In the present case, both criminal courts have done exactly that. To refuse renewal on the speculative apprehension that the appellant might misuse the passport is, in effect, to second guess the criminal courts' assessment of risk and to assume for the passport authority a supervisory role which the statute does not envisage.
Look Out Circulars: The Restriction You May Not Know About
A Look Out Circular (LOC) is an alert issued to immigration authorities to stop a person at the airport, and many people only discover one exists when they are turned back at the gate. LOCs are governed by Home Ministry office memoranda, and they are not meant to be issued mechanically. In Sumedha Goel v. Union of India, the Punjab and Haryana High Court quashed an LOC against a woman who was not even an accused in any criminal case, issued only because her father faced a money-laundering matter, holding it violated her right to travel and the principles of natural justice[8]. Courts have continued to take a strict view of LOCs, with the Delhi High Court quashing circulars that curtail the right to travel without justification. For background on how the LOC framework has developed, this overview of the evolution of look out circulars is a useful guide.
What to Do If You Have a Case and Need to Travel
Plan the legal steps before you book the ticket, because a restriction discovered at the airport is the worst time to learn about it.
Check the stage and terms of your case. Find out whether cognizance has been taken or a charge sheet filed, and read your bail order for any travel or passport condition. These determine what you actually need to clear.
Apply to the trial court for permission to travel. File an application specifying the dates, destination and purpose, and offer a bond or surety and an undertaking to return and attend hearings. This is the cleanest route and pre-empts any later dispute.
Get your passport released if it was surrendered. Move the court that holds it for release, or the passport authority if it was impounded, pointing to the absence of recorded reasons or the conclusion of investigation.
Check for a Look Out Circular and challenge it if needed. If you suspect an LOC, a writ petition in the High Court can have it quashed where it was issued without justification or without you being an accused.
Common Mistakes That Lead to a Stopped Departure
Assuming a pending case is an automatic ban. It is not. The right to travel survives the case, and a passport can only be impounded by the passport authority for recorded reasons, not by routine assumption[4].
Believing the police or trial court can impound your passport. They cannot. The police may seize it during investigation, but only the passport authority can impound it, and a trial court cannot do so under the Criminal Procedure Code[5].
Travelling without court permission and hoping for the best. If your bail order has a travel condition, leaving without permission can be treated as a breach and jeopardise your bail. Get the order modified first, as in Lucky Jain[7].
Ignoring a possible Look Out Circular. An LOC does not always reach you, and you can be stopped without warning. If there is any chance one exists, verify and clear it before you travel, and challenge an unjustified one as Sumedha Goel shows you can[8]. The right to travel abroad is strong, but it is protected only if you assert it through the right forum before you reach the airport.
