2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 8532
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
MONDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JULY 2024 / 17TH ASHADHA, 1946
CRIME NO.144/2022 OF MANKADA POLICE STATION, Malappuram
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 26.06.2024 IN CRMP NO.2 OF 2024 OF SPECIAL
COURT (ATROCITIES AGAINST SC/ST), MANJERI
PETITIONER/ ACCUSED NO.3 :
MUHAMMED NOUSHAD BABU N
AGED 39 YEARS
S/O.ABOOBACKER, NJARANTHODI HOUSE,
ARIPRA, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 679321
BY ADV BABU S. NAIR
RESPONDENT/ STATE & COMPLAINANT :
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM,
KOCHI, PIN - 682031
THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
MANKADA POLICE STATION,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,
PIN – 679 324
BY SRI. NOUSHAD K. A., PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
08.07.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Crl.M.C.No.5597 of 2024
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dated this the 8th day of July, 2024
ADV BABU S. NAIR, SRI. NOUSHAD K. A., PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The court balanced the need for the petitioner's presence during the trial and the expiry of his visa, by allowing the release of the passport after the charges are framed, subject to certain conditions.
Headnote:
Passport - Release of Passport - Sections 326, 308 r/w 34 of IPC, Sections 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Act - The court allowed the release of the petitioner's passport on certain conditions, considering the expiry of his visa and the need for his presence during the trial.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner is the accused in a criminal case under Sections 326 and 308 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989. Despite a court order to surrender for interrogation, the petitioner evaded and did not comply. The petitioner later surrendered his passport and applied for its release, which was dismissed by the Special Court. The petitioner challenged this order.
Finding of the Court:
The court observed that the Special Court's decision cannot be faulted, considering the petitioner's past conduct. However, taking into account the submissions made, the court decided to allow the release of the petitioner's passport, but not before the charges are framed, subject to certain conditions.
Issues: Whether the petitioner's passport should be released, considering the expiry of his visa and the need for his presence during the trial.
Ratio Decidendi: The court allowed the release of the petitioner's passport after the charges are framed, subject to the petitioner executing a bond undertaking to appear before the court as required, filing an affidavit that he will not dispute his identity and will cooperate in the trial, and the authorities being at liberty to immediately initiate steps to impound the passport if the petitioner fails to appear or participate in the trial.
Final Decision: The petitioner's passport can be released to him immediately after the court frames the charges, subject to the conditions mentioned.
Petitioner challenges the order dated 26.06.2024 whereby his application for release of his passport has been dismissed by the Special Court for SC/ ST (POA) Act & NDPS Act Cases, Manjeri.
2. Petitioner is the accused in S.C.No.1113 of 2022 on the files of the aforementioned court. The offences alleged against the petitioner include Sections 326 and 308 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 apart from Sections 3 (1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989 .
3. During the stage of investigation, despite an order of the court directing surrender, for the purpose of interrogation, petitioner evaded and did not abide by the said condition.
Subsequently, petitioner appeared and surrendered his passport on 19.05.2024. Immediately thereafter, petitioner applied for release of his passport. The Special Court by the impugned order refused to accede to the prayer, after noticing that the case is ripe for trial and is already included in the proposal of fixing the target for disposal of cases. Noticing the previous conduct of the petitioner, the Special Court believed that petitioner will not be available for trial if the passport is released.
4. I have heard Sri.Babu S.Nair, the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri.Noushad K.A., Public Prosecutor.
5. Though the observation of the Special Court cannot be found fault with at all especially in view of the past conduct of the petitioner, I am of the opinion that taking note of the submissions made across the Bar, the passport of the petitioner can be directed to be released especially since it is alleged that his Visa may expire, if he does not return. However, the same is not a reason to permit the petitioner to leave before charges are framed.
6. Accordingly, petitioner's passport can be released to him immediately after the court frames the charges on the following conditions :-
1. Petitioner shall execute a bond undertaking that he shall appear before the court as and when required.
2. Petitioner shall file an affidavit that he will not dispute his identity during trial and shall always be represented by counsel on all posting dates. The affidavit shall further mention that he shall co-operate and participate in the trial without fail.
3. In case petitioner fails to appear or participate in the trial, the authorities will be at liberty to immediately initiate steps to impound the passport of the petitioner.
the Crl.M.C. is disposed of as above.