High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2015-09-22Allowed

Robin Antony v. State of Kerala and Sub Inspector of Police, Attingal

Case / Petition Number:Crl.M.C.No. 6213 of 2015

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: K. Ramakrishnan, J.
Judgment Date: 2015-09-22
Court Decision / Holding: The High Court allowed the petition(s) and directed the Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court-I, Attingal to dispose of the applicant’s petitions (C.C. 397/2009) for return of passport and for permanent exemption, within ten days from receipt of a copy of the order. The court also instructed the lower court to consider the precedent laid down in Ashok Kumar v. State (2009) 2 KLT 712 and subsequent decisions in similar pending matters, and to communicate the order promptly by fax. This decision reflects a balance between enabling the applicant’s employment-related travel and safeguarding the ongoing trial process, with an emphasis on dispatch and judicial efficiency.
Final Disposition: Allowed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Robin Antony, accused No. 2

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam, Kochi-682031
Sub Inspector of Police, Attingal Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram-695101

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. P. Haridas
• Smt. Sikky
• Sri. P.C. Shijin

Counsels for Respondents

• Public Prosecutor (P. Maya)

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Criminal Miscellaneous Case (Crl.M.C.) filed in the Kerala High Court by the second accused, Robin Antony, challenging the denial or delay in disposing of his applications filed in relation to C.C.No.397/2009 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court-I, Attingal. The background traces to an earlier joint case (C.C.No.41/2005) in which the first accused was acquitted, and the petitioner’s case was split and later refiled as C.C.No.397/2009. Accused No.2 had previously been enlarged on bail with conditions, including surrender of his passport. He later surrendered before the court on 01.09.2015 and obtained bail with passport surrender and other conditions, including a date-limitation for renewal of his visa. He moved petitions (CMP Nos. 3780/15 and 3781/15) seeking permanent exemption from appearance and return of his passport, citing impending employment commitments and visa expiry around 15.10.2015. The Public Prosecutor opposed the relief, arguing that returning the passport could enable absconding. The High Court, noting the urgency and hardship faced by the applicant and recognizing public interest in timely adjudication, directed the lower court to decide the applications expeditiously, within ten days, and to consider the Ashok Kumar v. State precedent on passport-related relief. The order reflects a balance between ensuring appearance and safeguarding employment/family obligations while emphasizing prompt judicial action.

Provisions of Law Cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, Section 482Indian Penal Code: Sections 476, 482, 483, 485, 486, 420, 487Copyright Act, Section 63 (Copy Right (Amendment) Act)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner argued grave hardship if relief is not granted. He had to travel for employment abroad and would lose his job if required to remain in India. The passport was surrendered as a condition of bail, but with imminent visa expiry and employment commitments, timely disposal of CMP Nos.3780/15 (for return of passport) and 3781/15 (permanent exemption) was necessary. He stated willingness to appear as and when required and to co-operate with trial, seeking a short, definite time frame for travel and return. He asserted that delay would adversely affect his livelihood and international employment prospects, and that the court should exercise discretion in light of urgency and the prior acquittal of co-accused. Respondents: The Public Prosecutor opposed relief, contending that the accused previously absconded and passport return could facilitate re-absconding. The court’s duty to prevent unstated risks and maintain trial integrity was emphasized, arguing for continuing restrictions until sufficient assurances were in place that the applicant would not evade process.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Ashok Kumar v. State	2009 (2) KLT 712	Positive	The judgment cites and applies the Ashok Kumar v. State principle to justify expeditious disposal of passport-related applications and to align with prior Kerala High Court practice in pending matters.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Robin Antony v. State of Kerala and Sub Inspector of Police, Attingal and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN** **TUESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2015/31ST BHADRA, 1937** ## **Crl.MC.No. 6213 of 2015 ---------------------------** **CC.NO.397/09 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, ATTINGAL. CRIME NO. 120/2004 OF ATTINGAL POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **.......** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2:** **-------------------------------------------** **ROBIN ANTONY, S/O ANTONY, PURATHOOR HOUSE, VADUKATTU POLICE HOUSING COMPLEX, WARD NO. , THRISSUR CORPORTATION, VIYOOR VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS.SRI.P.HARIDAS SMT.S.SIKKY SRI.P.C.SHIJIN** ## **RESPONDENT(S)/STATE & COMPLAINANT:** **--------------------------------------------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESETED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 031.** **2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ATTINGAL POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 101.** **BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.P.MAYA** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22-09-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **mbr/** ## **Crl.MC.No. 6213 of 2015** ## **---------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:** ## **------------------------------------------** **ANNEXURE 1: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF ACQUITTAL IN CC NO. 41/05 OF FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE -I, ATTINGAL DT. 20/4/09. ANNEXURE 2: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CMP 3716/15 IN CC NO. 397/09 (RE-FILED) OF FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE -I, ATTINGAL DT. 2/9/15. ANNEXURE 3: TRUE COPY OF THE CMP NO. 3780/15 IN CC 397/09 FILED BEFOR THE FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, ATTINGAL DT. 7/9/15. ANNEXURE 4: TRUE COPY OF THE CMP NO. 3781/15 IN CC 397/09 FILED BEFOR THE FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, ATTINGAL DT. 7/9/15.** ## **RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL.** ## **//TRUE COPY//** ## **P.S. TO JUDGE** ## **mbr** ## **K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.** = = = = = = = = = = = = = = ## **Crl.M.C.No. 6213 of 2015** = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 22[nd] day of September, 2015 **O R D E R** This is an application filed by the petitioner, who is the 2[nd] accused in C.C.No.397/2009 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Attingal, for giving direction to the Magistrate to dispose of the petition pending before that court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code'). 2. It is alleged in the petition that the petitioner was arraigned as 2[nd] accused in a crime registered against several persons including the petitioner by the 2[nd] respondent, alleging offences under Sections 476, 482, 483, 485, 486, 420 and 487 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 63 of the Copy Right (Amendment) Act and it was taken originally on file as C.C.No.41/2005 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Attingal and the 1[st] Crl.M.C.No. 6213 of 2015 2 accused faced trial and he was acquitted by Annexure-A1 order. 3. The case against the petitioner was split up and refiled as C.C.No.397/2009. He was on bail during crime stage. Since no summons was received, he could not appear. Later, he surrendered before the court on 01.09.2015 and obtained bail as per Annexure-A2 order with conditions inter alia to produce his passport. Accordingly, he surrendered his passport. Since he had to go back in connection with his employment before 15.10.2015 as his visa will be expired, he filed Annexure-A4 petition as C.M.P.No.3781/2015 for return of the passport and also Annexure-A3 petition for granting permanent exemption. But the court below without passing orders, adjourned the case to a distant date. If no orders have been passed in that application, he would be put to serious hardship and he is likely to lose his employment. Hence this petition is filed seeking direction to the Magistrate to Crl.M.C.No. 6213 of 2015 3 dispose of those applications. 4. Heard Sri.P.Haridas, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Maya, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that unless those applications are disposed of, he will be put to serious hardship as he is likely to lose his employment, he had to go back and get the visa renewed. He is prepared to come back and co-operate with the trial of the case. He wants only a shorter period for going and coming back. 6. The applications are opposed by the Public Prosecutor on the ground that he was an absconding accused earlier and that was the reason, when he appeared, his passport was directed to be surrendered and if the passport is returned, he is likely to abscond again. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was arraigned as 2[nd] accused in C.C.No.41/2005 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Attingal along with other Crl.M.C.No. 6213 of 2015 **==> picture [7 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** accused persons and since he did not appear, the case against the 1[st] accused was ended in acquittal as per Annexure A1 order and the case against the petitioner was split up and refiled as C.C No. 397/2009. When he came to know about the pendency of the case, he is surrendered and as per Annexure-A2 order, he was granted bail with conditions inter alia to surrender his passport. Now, he filed Annexures A3 and A4 petitions seeking permanent exemption from appearance and also for return of the passport, on the ground that, his visa will expire on 15.10.2015 and will have to report for his employment otherwise he is likely to lose his employment. He has also undertaken that he will appear before the court below as and when his presence is required and co-operate with the trial of the case. But it may be mentioned here that when an application has been filed for seeking certain relief with some urgency, the court below is expected to dispose of his application at the earliest possible time, so that even if it Crl.M.C.No. 6213 of 2015 5 goes against the petitioner, he can approach the higher court for proper relief. Further, it is mentioned in the petition itself that he is working abroad and he has got leave only upto 15.10.2015 and will have to report for his employment otherwise he is likely to lose his employment. So, under such circumstances, when an application has been filed for return of the passport and also an application has been filed for permanent exemption, the court below is expected to pass orders of the application at the earliest possible time. So, considering the circumstances, it appears that the grievance of the petitioner is genuine. So, the petition is allowed and a direction is issued to the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Attingal to dispose of the application filed by the petitioner in C.C 397/2009 for return of passport and also for permission to appear through counsel as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within '10' days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The court below is also directed to consider the Crl.M.C.No. 6213 of 2015 **==> picture [7 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** dictum laid down in the decision reported in **Ashok Kumar v. State** [2009 (2) KLT 712] and subsequent decision on this aspect by this Court while considering the application for return of passport in the pending matters. Office is directed to communicate this order immediately by fax as far as possible. Sd/- **K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.** stu