Interim Order 28

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 1
IN THE COURT OF DIG VINAY SINGH, SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT), CBI-09
(MPs/MLAs CASES), ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURT, NEW DELHI.
IA No. 10/26 (Applicant/ A-2 Pradip Kumar Nandlal Dhoot)
In Ct. 32/2024
ECIR/HQ/08/2020/2020
CNR no. DLCT11-001235-2024
U/s. 45 r/w 44 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002
for commission of offence u/s. 3 and punishable u/s. 4 of PMLA
Directorate of Enforcement
Versus
Venugopal Nandlal Dhoot @V.N. Dhoot & Ors.
09.06.2026
Present: Applicant/A-2 Pradip Kumar Nandlal Dhoot
(VC) along with Ld.
Counsel Mr. Ujjawal Jain and Mr. Mayank Sharma
(Physically).
Mr. N. K. Matta, Ld. SPP for DoE along with Ld. Counsel Mr.
Faizan Khan
(Physically).
ORDER
1 This is an application by the applicant/accused No. 2, Pradeep Kumar Nandlal
Dhoot, seeking permission/no objection for issuance/ renewal of his passport
(No. Z3794481), which is stated to have been lost and therefore the applicant
seeks permission of the Court for re-issuance of the Passport to the applicant.
Otherwise the Passport of the applicant was valid till 11.03.2027. The
applicant is presently facing proceedings in the above-mentioned DoE case,
which is at the preliminary stage.
2 The applicant submits that after he lost the Passport he applied for its re-
issuance, but the Passport authorities have asked the applicant to furnish order/
Order dated 09.06.2026 in IA no.10/2026 (Ct. no. 32/2024) DoE vs. Venugopal Nandlal Dhoot & Ors. Page 1 of 5
-- 1 of 5 --
2
permission of this Court in view of the pendency of the criminal proceedings.
He submits that the applicant being a senior citizen requires a valid Passport
not only for the purpose of identity, but also for travel requirements for
business and personal commitments. It is also submitted that in the bail order
of this court dated 10.03.2026 there is a specific condition that the applicant
shall not travel abroad without permission of the Court. It is stated that the
applicant is a law-abiding citizen and a tax assessee. He has deep roots in
society and is not a flight risk. He has not misused his bail liberties. He orally
contends that a short-term Passport renewal would be burdensome and that
foreign visas are often denied for passports with less than 6 months of validity.
He also undertakes to abide by all conditions which may be imposed by this
Court, and he states that, even otherwise, pursuant to a condition contained in
the bail order dated 10.03.2026, he cannot travel abroad without the express
permission of this Court. He claims he has diligently participated in the
proceedings of the present case. It is also claimed that the ongoing trial is
likely to take substantial time to conclude, as it is at a preliminary stage.
3 On the other hand, the prosecution objects to the renewal of the applicant's
Passport for the full tenure of 10 years, as mentioned in the reply. The DoE
claims that notification no. G.S.R. no.570(E) and the office memorandum
(O.M.) no.VI/401/1/5/2019 dated 10.10.2019, issued by the Ministry of
External Affairs, Government of India, generally restrict the validity of a
Passport for persons facing criminal proceedings to one year. DoE further
raises concerns about the serious nature of the offences and the risk that the
accused will flee the country to avoid trial.
4 This Court has considered the rival submissions. The application ought to be
allowed in the light of the statutory framework and the recent decision of the
Order dated 09.06.2026 in IA no.10/2026 (Ct. no. 32/2024) DoE vs. Venugopal Nandlal Dhoot & Ors. Page 2 of 5
-- 2 of 5 --
3
Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Mahesh Kumar Aggarwal Vs. Union of India
2025:INSC:1476, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that the right
to travel abroad and to hold a Passport are essential facets of personal liberty
under Article 21 of the Constitution. Any restriction on this right must be not
only necessary but also proportionate and fair.
4.1 The Apex Court held that Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, which mandates
the refusal of a passport if criminal proceedings are pending, is not an
unyielding or absolute embargo. This provision is expressly "subject to the
other provisions of this Act," including Section 22, which allows the Central
Government to grant exemptions.
4.2 It also held that under Notification GSR 570(E), citizens with pending
criminal cases can obtain a passport if they have "permission to depart from
India" from the concerned court. The Supreme Court ruled that:
● This permission does not need to be a "one-time license" or a
"concrete permission for an immediately proposed journey".
● If a criminal court grants a "no objection" for renewal while
retaining control over the individual’s travel (e.g., via bail
conditions or requiring the re-deposit of the passport), the
statutory concern of Section 6(2)(f) is satisfied.
● The Passport Authority cannot demand a schedule of future
journeys or visas as a jurisdictional precondition for renewal.
4.3 The Apex Court reaffirmed that the right to hold a passport is a facet of
personal liberty under Article 21. Any restriction must be:
Order dated 09.06.2026 in IA no.10/2026 (Ct. no. 32/2024) DoE vs. Venugopal Nandlal Dhoot & Ors. Page 3 of 5
-- 3 of 5 --
4
● Necessary and proportionate to the objective (ensuring the
accused's presence for trial).
● When a court has already secured an accused’s presence through
bail conditions, an indefinite denial of a passport is an
unreasonable restriction.
4.4 The Supreme Court established a clear distinction between the civil right to
possess a valid passport and the act of traveling abroad. While the Passport
Authority issues the document, the criminal court remains the sole arbiter of
whether the holder may actually leave the country. The Passport Authority
should not "second-guess" the criminal court's assessment of risk by refusing
renewal.
5 In the present case, the restriction on the applicant’s travel abroad is
adequately controlled by this Court, and he cannot travel abroad without
seeking and obtaining prior permission of this Court. It is a bail condition. It is
nobody’s case that the applicant ever misused the liberty of bail till now.
6 Thus, keeping in view the applicant’s conduct and his requirement to travel
abroad, that may be hindered by a short-term renewal of the passport, and
following the mandate of the Supreme Court in the above-mentioned case,
this Court allows renewal/ re-issuance of the applicant’s passport for a full
tenure of 10 years, if the rules of the Passport authorities permit re-issuance
beyond 11.03.2027. This Court finds no justification to curtail the normal
period of validity to 1 year when stringent controls over actual travel are in
place.
7 The application is thus allowed, and it is ordered that there is no objection to
the renewal/re-issuance of the applicant’s passport No. Z3794481 for the
Order dated 09.06.2026 in IA no.10/2026 (Ct. no. 32/2024) DoE vs. Venugopal Nandlal Dhoot & Ors. Page 4 of 5
-- 4 of 5 --
5
normal period of 10 years. The regional passport officer concerned may
process the applicant’s renewal/ re-issuance application, subject to the usual
procedural requirements and verification. This renewal is subject to the
subsisting bail condition that the applicant shall not leave India without prior
permission of this Court. The applicant shall inform this Court and the DoE
once the renewed passport is received and shall produce the same before this
Court as and when directed. A copy of the re-issued/ renewed passport shall
be furnished by the applicant to the IO/ complainant as well as in this Court
within 2 weeks of receiving of the Passport.
8 The application under IA No. 10/26 is accordingly disposed of. A copy of this
order be sent to the Ld. SPP as well as the applicant through e-mail, digitally
signed. Dasti.
Announced in the open Court
on 09th June 2026
DIG VINAY SINGH
SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT), CBI-09
(MPs/MLAs CASES), RADC, NEW DELHI (m)
Order dated 09.06.2026 in IA no.10/2026 (Ct. no. 32/2024) DoE vs. Venugopal Nandlal Dhoot & Ors. Page 5 of 5
-- 5 of 5 --