Salim v. Sub Inspector of Police, Valiyathura Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram & State of Kerala

## IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN SATURDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2014/29TH BHADRA, 1936 Crl.MC.No. 5301 of 2014 () ----------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN CMP 13/2014 of J.M.F.C.-I,TRIVANDRUM CRIME NO. 1184/2014 OF VALIYATHURA POLICE STATION , THIRUVANANDAPURAM ## PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER/PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------ ## SALIM S/O. RAJAPPAN, POOVALLIYIL, CHIRAYAZHIKKAL THURAYIL ALAPPAD VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SUNNY MATHEW ## RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE: ## 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE VALIYATHURA POLICE STATION THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695001. ## 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. R. REMA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20-09-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.MC.No. 5301 of 2014 () ----------------------- ## APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS -------------------------- ANNEXURE A1- TRUE COPY OF THE ELECTRONIC EXIT REENTRY VIS ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. ANNEXURE A2- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 1709-2014 PASSED BY THE TEMPORARY COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM IN C.M.P. 13/2014. /TRIE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE ## V.K. MOHANAN, J. --------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No. 5301 of 2014 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 20[th] day of September, 2014 ## ORDER Petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No. 1184 of 2014 of Valiyathura Police Station and his present grievance is that though he had preferred an application (CMP No. 13/2014) before the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate - XI, Thiruvananthapuram, seeking permission to go abroad and to return of his passport and air ticket, the learned Magistrate declined the above request as per Annexure - A2 order. Therefore, he prays to quash Annexure -A2 Order directing the Judicial First Class Magistrate - XI Thiruvananthapuram, to return the return ticket and his passport temporary and permit him to go abroad for a period of two years. _**Crl.M.C. No. 5301 of 2014**_ **==> picture [14 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor. 3. The crux of the prosecution allegation is that the petitioner and the de facto complainant were the co-travelers of Flight No. UL-161 which landed at Thiruvananthapuram Airt Port at 9 a.m. On 26-08-2014. As per the prosecution allegation, the petitioner/accused cheated the de facto complainant and committed criminal breach of trust and thereby dishonestly induced the de facto complainant who is a lady to deliver gold ornaments from her and thereafter the petitioner left the above said Airport and thus according to the prosecution, the petitioner has committed the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC. The petitioner, thereafter, enlarged on bail on 2-09-2014 on his executing a bond for Rs. 1,00,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like amount and certain conditions are also _**Crl.M.C. No. 5301 of 2014**_ :3: incorporated. 4. Sri.Sunny Mathew, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that at the time of the arrest of the petitioner, police seized the passport and return flight ticket of the petitioner which were produced before the Court. According to the petitioner, he wants to report for duty at Riyad for which permission of the court to leave the country, his passport and return flight ticket are absolutely necessary. The return flight ticket is taken for the journey on 25-09-2014. It is under the above circumstances, according to the petitioner, he approached the Court below by filing the above referred petition. But the learned Magistrate dismissed the petition on flimsy grounds. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the gold ornaments involved in the case has already been seized by the police and the same is returned to the de facto complainant and _**Crl.M.C. No. 5301 of 2014**_ **==> picture [14 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** the police is now being approached the customs authorities for the confiscation of the above property and the investigation will be started only thereafter. So, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the case against the petitioner is not likely to take in the near future. So, according to the learned counsel, unless the passport, return flight ticket etc, are not returned to the petitioner and he is not permitted to go abroad , there is every chance to loose his employment which will adversely affect his future life. ## 6. This Court in the decision reported in **Ashok Kumar v. State of Kerala - 2009 (2) KLT 712** has held: “As per the said notification it is only if the Criminal Court before which the case of the applicant is pending permits him to depart from India, will the applicant be exempted from the operation of the provisions of cl. (f) of sub.s(2) of S.6 of the said Act and the same shall be, subject to conditions such as the period specified by the Court for the issue of Passport etc”. 7. In the present case, it is beyond dispute that the alleged _**Crl.M.C. No. 5301 of 2014**_ **==> picture [14 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** incident was occurred on 26-08-2014 and the investigation is, as rightly observed by the learned Magistrate in the impugned order, in the infant stage and there is every possibility for the police to take substantial time to complete the investigation and to lay the charge. Even if the police report is filed, to conclude the trial in such a case, further time is required and, therefore, it is unjust to retain the passport of the petitioner in the Court and denying permission to the petitioner to go abroad. 8. In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that if the petitioner is not granted permission to go abroad, there is every chance to loose his employment which adversely affect his future life resulting civil consequences. So, according to me , it is only just and proper to permit the petitioner to go abroad for which the passport and flight ticket can be ordered to be returned to him subject to _**Crl.M.C. No. 5301 of 2014**_ **==> picture [14 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** stringent conditions. In the result, this Crl.M.C is disposed of directing the Judicial First Class Magistrate-XI, Temporary Court, Thiruvananthapuram to return the passport bearing No. F2991557 and flight ticket, if any, already seized from the petitioner and produced in the court and permit him to go abroad for a period of 1 year from the date of release of his passport, on condition that the petitioner executing a bond for Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Magistrate and on filing an affidavit to the effect that he shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required and he will surrender the passport on or before the date of expiry of one year time from the date of release of the passport from the court below and on further condition that the petitioner deposits a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- _**Crl.M.C. No. 5301 of 2014**_ **==> picture [14 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** (Rupees one lakh fifty thousand only) in cash in the trial Court at the time of executing the bond. It is made clear that in case the petitioner wants permission to go abroad and return the passport, he can approach the court below, who will consider such request guided by the decision reported in **Ashok Kumar v. State of Kerala - 2009 (2) KLT 712.** _Dated this the 20[th] day of September, 2014._ Sd/- V.K. MOHANAN, JUDGE. ## **ani/**