- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Amit Wadhwani v. The State Of Madhya Pradesh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE B. P. SHARMA ON THE 9thOF JANUARY, 2026 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 691 of 2026
AMIT WADHWANI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Deepak Awasthi - Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Pankaj Dubey - Advocate for the respondent/EOW.
ORDER
This petition under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 (Section 428 of CrPC, 1973) has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 07.10.2025 passed in Sessions Trial No.600036/2014 by the Special Sessions Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, Bhopal, whereby the application preferred by the petitioner seeking renewal of passport was partly allowed and permission was granted only for a limited period of two years.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that renewal of passport is not a part of trial and once the Trial Court found it appropriate to permit renewal of passport, there was no justification for restricting the validity of the passport to only two years. It is submitted that the impugned order imposing such limitation is arbitrary and unsustainable in the eyes of law. It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the petitioner absconding. It is also submitted that the petitioner is cooperating with the investigation and proceedings. On the aforesaid grounds, it is prayed that the impugned order dated 07.10.2025 be modified and the petitioner be permitted to renew his passport in accordance with law without any arbitrary
1
(B. P. SHARMA)
JUDGE
restriction on its validity. Reliance has been placed on the judgments of Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India, 1975 (1) SCC 248 and Satwant Singh Sawhney Vs. APO, New Delhi, AIR 1967 SC 1836 and also order dated 19.12.2025 passed i n SLP(Civil) No.17769/2025 (Mahesh Kumar Agrawal Vs. Union ofIndia & others).
3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/EOW has opposed the prayer made by the petitioner and supported the impugned order.
4. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record.
5. It is evident that the Trial Court, while passing the order dated 07.10.2025, permitted renewal of the petitioner's passport but restricted its validity to a period of two years. Renewal of passport, however, is not a part of the trial proceedings.
6. Under these circumstances, the impugned order dated 07.10.2025 passed in Sessions Trial No.600036/2014 by the Trial Court, insofar as it restricts the renewal of the petitioner's passport to a period of two years, is modified to the said extent that the petitioner is permitted to get his passport renewed for the normal period of ten years in accordance with law. Other conditions of the order passed by Trial Court shall remain intact.
7. The petition is disposed of accordingly. @shish
2
Alert