Rajasthan HC Orders Release of Thai National's Seized Passport for Renewal, Holds Article 21 Protects Foreign Accused
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand set aside a magistrate's refusal to release a Thai woman's passport, holding that pendency of a customs case cannot bar renewal of a foreign national's travel document under Article 21.
The Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur, in a reportable order dated 21 May 2026, directed the release of a Thai national's seized passport so that she could get it renewed, overturning a lower court's refusal. Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, sitting singly, held that the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India extends to all persons, including foreign nationals facing criminal trial in India, and that the mere pendency of a criminal case cannot be treated as a valid ground to deny passport facilities. The ruling draws on a recent Supreme Court decision on the Passports Act, 1967 and on the newly enacted Immigration and Foreigners Order, 2025, to show that separate statutory machinery already exists to prevent a foreign accused from leaving India without permission.
The Customs Arrest and Passport Seizure
Saisuda Chuennok, a resident of Bangduan, Sub-District Miyong, District Samut, Province Prakan, Thailand, arrived at Jaipur International Airport on 10 July 2022 by Air Asia Flight No. FD-130. On examination, customs officials found her in possession of gold jewellery weighing 575.100 grams, valued at Rs. 33,07,773. Her statements were recorded under Section 108 of the Central Excise and Customs Act, 1962. She was arrested, and her passport bearing No. AB-4670024 was seized. A complaint was filed against her and co-accused persons for offences punishable under Sections 132 and 135 of the Act of 1962 before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Economic Offences), Jaipur Metropolitan-II.
The petitioner was subsequently granted bail. Her passport, issued by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Thailand on 7 January 2020, expired on 6 January 2025. Unable to travel to Thailand or renew her document without physical possession of the passport, she filed an application under Section 451 Cr.P.C. before the trial court seeking its release for renewal purposes.
The Trial Court's Refusal and the Respondent's Case
The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate rejected the application on 27 January 2023. The ground was straightforward: the petitioner is a foreign national with no permanent address in India, and handing over her passport would create a real risk of flight. The respondent, the Inspector of the Customs Duty Department at Jaipur International Airport, reinforced this before the High Court. Counsel for the respondent described the petitioner as a habitual offender who had, by her own admission recorded under Section 108 of the Act of 1962, travelled to India on four prior occasions for gold smuggling. This time she was caught red-handed.
The respondent also pointed to a specific episode of bail misuse: the petitioner failed to appear before the trial court on 7 January 2025, her bail bonds were forfeited, and she remained absconding until 14 May 2026. Given this history, counsel argued, the apprehension that she would not return to face trial if her passport were restored was entirely reasonable, and the trial court had committed no error.
The Constitutional and Statutory Framework the Court Applied
Justice Dhand began with first principles. Article 21 of the Constitution provides that no person shall be deprived of life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. The court held that this guarantee is not confined to Indian citizens. Foreign nationals facing trial in India are equally entitled to the right to life with dignity. The court cited the Supreme Court's ruling in Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, (1980) 3 SCC 488, for the proposition that even a convicted individual holds a right to dignified life under Article 21, and K.S. Puttaswamy & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., (2017) 10 SCC 1, for the principle that anything personal is part of one's privacy and cannot be invaded unless enabled by law, even in the case of a foreign accused.
On the right to travel abroad specifically, the court drew on Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248, which held that no person can be deprived of the right to go abroad unless a law prescribes a fair, just and reasonable procedure for doing so. It also referred to Satish Chandra Verma v. Union of India, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 2048, where the Supreme Court described the right to travel abroad as “an important basic human right” that nourishes the individual's self-determining character and extends to private life, family and friendship.
The court then addressed the Passports Act, 1967 through the prism of the Supreme Court's recent decision in Mahesh Kumar Agarwal v. Union of India & Anr., SLP (Civil) No. 17769/2025, decided on 19 December 2025. That ruling examined Sections 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 22 of the Passports Act and held that pendency of a criminal case does not place an absolute bar on passport renewal. Section 6(2)(f) of the Act, which requires refusal where criminal proceedings are pending, is qualified by the exemption mechanism under Section 22 and GSR 570(E). The Supreme Court had observed that converting a qualified restriction into a near-permanent disability to hold a valid passport — even where the criminal courts themselves have permitted renewal — is disproportionate and unreasonable. It also drew a clear distinction between possessing a valid passport and actually travelling abroad, noting that the criminal court retains full power to grant or withhold permission for foreign travel.
Addressing the Flight-Risk Concern Through the Immigration and Foreigners Order, 2025
The core anxiety of the trial court was that a foreign national in possession of a valid passport might simply leave India and never return. Justice Dhand held that the legislature has already provided a specific mechanism for exactly this situation.
Order/Clause 5 of the Immigration and Foreigners Order, 2025, enacted under the Foreigners Act, 2025, governs the grant of permission to foreign nationals to depart from India. The provision empowers an Immigration Officer to refuse departure if the foreigner's presence is required in India by any court, if departure may adversely affect relations with a foreign state, or if departure would not be in the public interest. The court reproduced the provision in full and observed that the discretion to permit or refuse departure lies with the concerned Immigration Officer, entirely independent of whether the accused holds a valid passport.
The court reinforced this with the Supreme Court's directions in Frank Vitus v. Narcotics Control Bureau & Ors., (2025) 3 SCC 1. In that case, the Supreme Court had held that once a foreigner is released on bail, she cannot leave India without the permission of the Civil Authority under the applicable Foreigners Order. The power to restrict a foreigner's departure is wholly independent of the power to grant bail. The Supreme Court had also directed that when bail is granted to a foreign national, the court must direct the investigating agency or the State to immediately inform the concerned Registration Officer, who in turn must communicate the order to all concerned authorities including Civil Authorities, so that appropriate steps can be taken.
Justice Dhand concluded that the apprehension driving the trial court's refusal — that the petitioner might flee — is addressed by this separate statutory machinery. Withholding the passport on that ground alone was not a legally sustainable position.
Outcome
The High Court allowed the criminal miscellaneous petition. The order dated 27 January 2023 passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Economic Offences), Jaipur Metropolitan-II, was quashed and set aside.
The trial court was directed to release the petitioner's passport for renewal by the concerned authorities. The court made clear that the petitioner would not travel abroad without first obtaining prior permission from the trial court, and that such permission shall be granted only after the trial court records its satisfaction.
A direction was issued to counsel for the Inspector, Customs Duty Department, Jaipur International Airport; the Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Government of Rajasthan; the Director General of Police, Police Headquarters, Jaipur; the Commissioner of Police, Police Commissionerate, Jaipur; the Director, Department of Prosecution, Government Secretariat, Jaipur; and the Government Advocate-cum-Additional Advocate General, to communicate the order to the Immigration Officer in terms of Sections 3 and 7 of the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025, the Immigration and Foreigners Rules, 2025, and the Immigration and Foreigners Order, 2025, for appropriate action. Copies of the order were directed to be sent to all the above officials for compliance. All pending applications, including the stay application, were disposed of.