S.S. Satheesachandran, J.

1. Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.54 of 2012 of Chalissery Police Station, registered for offences punishable under Section 419, 420, 465, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (for short “the IPC”) and Section 12(1) (b) of the Indian Passports Act, 1967. investigation of that crime is in progress.

2. The crux of the allegations imputed against the petitioner is that he obtained a passport in the name of another and using such passport went abroad, and remained in Soudi Arabia for nearly a decade. He is alleged to have renewed that passport obtained in a fictitious name. On his return from Soudi Arabia he was arrested, and the aforesaid crime was registered by the police. Petitioner applied for permission to get a passport in his name stating that his business operations in Soudi Arabia required his going over to that place at least for a short period. Communication received from the passport officer that authority shall abide by the orders of the court over the issue of passport in the name of the petitioner during the pendency of the crime, was also canvassed by him to contend that authority has no objections in issuing him a passport in his name. His request for permission from the court to enable him to get a passport in his name was objected by the investigating agency contending that he is likely to flee and evade the trial once passport is so obtained. Learned magistrate, taking note of the objection and also the seriousness of the offences imputed against the petitioner in the crime, turned down the request for permission to get a passport. That order is challenged in the above petition, and exercise of inherent powers of this court is sought for seeking permission to obtain a passport in his name.

3. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also learned Public Prosecutor.

4. Placing reliance on Asok Kumar v. State of Kerala (2009(2) KLT 712), learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that out-right rejection of his request by the learned magistrate is not proper, and he should have been granted at least permission to get a passport limiting the period of his operation imposing such conditions, as may be required, to ensure his presence for trial of the case. The investigation has not been completed and, even if it is completed within a short time, the trial of the case is likely to take its own time for its completion is highlighted by the counsel to contend that his prosecution for the offences imputed as such cannot deprive him to obtain a passport to go abroad for a limited period where circumstances presented by him for such need are compelling. Learned counsel also submitted that the petitioner is prepared to furnish cash security as may be fixed by the magistrate to obtain permission for getting a passport for a limited period, to secure and safeguard his presence for the investigation of the case/trial of the case.

5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor, adverting to the seriousness of the allegations giving rise to the registration of the crime against the petitioner for the grave offences imputed against him, contended that he has remained abroad for considerable period using a travel document obtained in the name of another person, and that being so, the discretion exercised by the magistrate for turning down his request for permission to obtain a passport in his name, that too when the investigation of the crime is going on does not warrant any interference.

6. Going through the order passed by the magistrate, it is seen, the learned magistrate turned down the request of the petitioner “considering the gravity of the allegations and the offences committed in respect of the travel document”. Whether he has committed the offences imputed is a matter that can be adjudged only in trial, and that too, after he is indicted of such offences by the investigating agency on a report filed under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The crime in the cas