Partly allowed¶40

Sri Apsar Pasha @ Kallu v. State by

Karnataka HC28 Jan 2026WP/34433/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court writ petition (GM-PASS) under Articles 226 and 227 seeking mandamus to Regional Passport Officer to renew passport No.N8953485 despite pendency of criminal proceedings in Crime No.659/2018 with petitioner on bail; disposed by allowing in part with liberty to seek short validity passport upon competent Court's permission to travel abroad; decision within 4 weeks; Justice B M Shyam Prasad; dated 28-01-2026.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed in part; liberty reserved to the petitioner to apply to respondent no.2 for issuance of a short validity passport along with the competent Court's order permitting him to travel abroad; respondent no.2 to decide on such application expeditiously within an outer limit of four weeks. ¶40

Sri Apsar Pasha @ Kallu Vs State by — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶40

Issue for consideration

Whether the pendency of criminal proceedings in Crime No.659/2018 can be a reason to refuse renewal of the petitioner's passport when he is admitted to bail by the competent Court. +1 more

¶31

Court's answer

The petition is allowed in part, reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach respondent no.2 with an application for issuance of a short validity passport along with the competent Court's order permitting him to travel abroad.

¶40

Ratio / Principle

Respondent no.2 is called upon to decide on such application expeditiously within an outer limit of four weeks from the date of receipt of the application and the competent Court's order.

¶41

Key takeaways

The petition stands disposed of by this order in the light of the undisputed facts and the stand on behalf of the second respondent (that it would consider a short validity passport if the competent Court permits travel), without adjudicating the contention on the pending criminal case.ratio¶38

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Oral order of the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru (Hon'ble Mr. Justice B M Shyam Prasad) in Writ Petition No. 34433 of 2025 (GM-PASS), dated 28 January 2026. The petitioner, against whom criminal proceedings in Crime No.659/2018 were pending while he stood admitted to bail by the competent Court, sought a mandamus under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution directing respondent no.2 (Regional Passport Officer, Bangalore) to renew his passport No.N8953485 (issued 24.03.2016) for intended travel abroad. The Central Government Counsel submitted that respondent no.2 could consider issuance of a 'short validity passport' if the competent Court permitted the petitioner to travel. Allowing the petition in part in the light of the undisputed facts and that stand, the Court reserved liberty to the petitioner to apply to respondent no.2 for a short validity passport together with the competent Court's order permitting travel abroad, and required respondent no.2 to decide such application expeditiously within an outer limit of four weeks from receipt of the application and the order.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:4521 WP No. 34433 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 34433 OF 2025 (GM-PASS)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI APSAR PASHA @ KALLU S/O LATE MOHAMMED HANIF AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, NOs.8 AND 7, 3^RD MAIN ROAD SHAMANNA NAGAR BANGALORE KARNATAKA 560026

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. MUZAFFAR AHMED.,ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

STATE BY MADANAYAKANAHALLI P S REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, BANGALIRE-1.

¶16

REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER OFFICE OF THE PASSPORT OFFICE 8^TH BLOCK, 80 FEET ROAD KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE 560095

¶17

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:4521 WP No. 34433 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

THE MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS OFFICE OF THE PASSPORT OFFICE 8^TH BLOCK, 80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE - 560095.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. ADITYA SINGH, CGC FOR R1 & R3; SRI. B. RAVINDRANATH., AGA FOR R1)

¶23

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO RENEW THE PETITIONER'S PASSPORT BEARING NO. N8953485, ISSUED ON 24.03.2016, ANNEXURE -D IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶24

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶26

¶27

NC: 2026:KHC:4521 WP No. 34433 of 2025

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

ORAL ORDER

¶30

The petitioner has filed this petition for

¶31

directions to the second respondent to renew his passport in No.N8953485 asserting that the pendency of the criminal proceedings in Crime No.659/2018 cannot be a reason to refuse renewal of the passport because he is admitted to bail by the competent Court. The petitioner contends that his passport must be renewed because of his intended travel abroad.

¶32

Sri Aditya Singh, the learned Central

¶33

Government Counsel who is permitted to take notice for the second and third respondents, submits that if the petitioner is permitted to travel by the competent Court, the second respondent can consider the request for issuance of short validity passport. Sri B Ravindranath, a the learned Additional Government Advocate, who accepts notice for the first respondent, is heard, and the petition stands disposed of by this

¶34

¶35

NC: 2026:KHC:4521 WP No. 34433 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

order in the light of the undisputed facts and the

¶38

stand on behalf of the second respondent.

¶39

ORDER

¶40

[a] The petition is allowed in part reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach the second respondent with an application for issuance of short validity passport along with the competent Court's order permitting him to travel abroad.

¶41

[b] The second respondent is called upon to decide on such application expeditiously within an outer limit of four [4] weeks from the date of receipt of the application and the competent Court's order.

¶42

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶43

AN/-

Sri Apsar Pasha @ Kallu v. State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Apsar Pasha @ Kallu v. State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Abhisheka Properties Vs the Principal Secretary

Charanpreet Kaur Vs State of Karnataka

Sri.Prakash Subramanian, Vs Union of India

Smt Rekha Vs Union Bank of India

C R Ranganath Arun Vs M/S Aakruti Nirmiti Ltd.

The Manager, Gokula Gold Pvt. Ltd., Vs Sri D K Maheshwarappa