National Security Is Equally Endangered By Those Who Facilitate: Karnataka High Court Refuses To Quash Case Against Travel Agent Who Renewed Terror Accused Passport
The petitioner, a physically disabled travel agent, contended that he had merely facilitated passport renewal applications and police verification in his capacity as a bona fide travel agent.
Justice M. Nagaprasanna, Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a criminal petition filed by a travel agent seeking to quash proceedings against him in a case involving alleged forgery, cheating and violations under the Passports Act, holding that the allegations require a full-fledged trial.
The petitioner, a physically disabled travel agent, contended that he had merely facilitated passport renewal applications and police verification in his capacity as a bona fide travel agent. He argued that he only processed paperwork for clients and that no fault could be found with his role.
Justice M. Nagaprasanna held, “Any individual - whether a private citizen, intermediary, or public servant - who, by act of commission or omission, acts against the interest of the Nation must be brought to book. National security is not imperiled only by those who directly engage in unlawful acts; it is equally endangered by those who facilitate, enable, or negligently permit such acts to occur. The law must therefore reach every link in the chain. ”
Advocate Parameshwarappa M V appeared for the Petitioner and Advocate B.N Jagadeesha appeared for the Respondents.
The State and the Regional Passport Office opposed the plea, contending that the petitioner had furnished his own address in as many as 15 passport applications, portraying it as the genuine residential address of the respective applicants. They further alleged that one of those applicants, Ibrahim Khaleel, arrayed as accused No.1, was a person wanted by the Andhra Pradesh Anti-Terrorist Squad.
The Court noted that the petitioner's name did not figure at the stage of registration of the crime but emerged during investigation after the filing of the charge sheet.
The Court observed that the allegation was "not one of mere clerical facilitation or routine procedural assistance." The Court said the petitioner was alleged to have facilitated police verification based on fabricated residential credentials, ultimately enabling the renewal of a passport in favour of a person suspected of activities inimical to national security.
The Court observed, "the petitioner is said to have enabled the renewal of a passport in favour of a person suspected of activities inimical to national security. Such allegations, if ultimately established in trial, transcend ordinary criminal misconduct and enter the realm of conduct prejudicial to the security and sovereignty of the Nation."
Rejecting the petitioner's reliance on his disability and health condition, the Court held that such circumstances "cannot eclipse the seriousness of the allegations."
The Court further stated that if the petitioner, "knowingly or otherwise, became an instrument in the chain of acts that facilitated identity verification and travel documentation of a person alleged to be involved in terrorist activities, the matter demands full judicial scrutiny."
The Court distinguished between a travel agent who performs lawful clerical functions and one who "becomes a conduit for the creation or use of fabricated credentials," holding that questions relating to knowledge, intent or culpable negligence can only be examined during trial.
"The petitioner, therefore, must face trial and come out clean, if indeed he is innocent," the Court said, adding that allegations concerning facilitation of documentation in favour of a person suspected of terrorist links assume larger public significance.
The High Court also highlighted the role of the police constable who cleared verification of all 15 applications routed through the petitioner, observing that such conduct could not escape judicial scrutiny.
If verification was granted without proper field inquiry or due diligence, the court said, "such dereliction is not a mere administrative lapse; it may well amount to a serious breach of public duty with far-reaching consequences."
Finding no merit in the petition, the High Court dismissed it.
Cause Title: U.M. Haidar v. State Public Prosecutor & Anr., [2026:KHC:30068]
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocate Parameshwarappa M V
Respondents: Advocates B.N Jagadeesha, H. Shanthi Bhushan