Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 26390
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
VIJU ABRAHAM, J
ARUN THOMAS – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Crl.MC 3806/2024
SAYUJYA K.R.RAJEEV KRISHNAN ASWATHY PAVITHRANN.RAGHURAJ (SR.)(K/114/1986)
The court held that the fact that a person is involved in a criminal case does not mean they cannot travel abroad for their employment, and the court can order the release of their passport in such cases.
Headnote:
Passport - Criminal Miscellaneous Case - Sections 498A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code - The court set aside the order rejecting the petitioner's request for release of his passport and directed the jurisdictional court to reconsider the application, as the petitioner was not arrested and the investigation was over, and he needed to travel abroad for his employment.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner is an accused in a criminal case registered under Sections 498A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner obtained anticipatory bail from the court with a direction to surrender his passport. The petitioner complied with the direction and submitted his passport to the investigating officer. The petitioner filed an application for the release of his passport, which was rejected by the jurisdictional court. The petitioner challenged this order in the present criminal miscellaneous case.
Finding of the Court:
The court observed that the petitioner was not arrested and only a notice under Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure was served on him. The investigation was also over, and the chargesheet had been filed. The court held that the petitioner's employment abroad would be affected if he did not return, and the fact that he was involved in a crime does not mean he cannot travel abroad for his employment. Therefore, the court set aside the order rejecting the release of the passport and directed the jurisdictional court to reconsider the petitioner's application for the release of his passport.
Issues: Whether the order rejecting the petitioner's request for the release of his passport should be set aside.
Ratio Decidendi: The court set aside the order rejecting the release of the petitioner's passport as the petitioner was not arrested, the investigation was over, and the chargesheet had been filed, and the petitioner needed to travel abroad for his employment.
Final Decision: The court set aside the order rejecting the release of the petitioner's passport and directed the jurisdictional court to reconsider the petitioner's application for the release of his passport within 10 days.
The above criminal miscellaneous case is filed challenging Annexure A8 order, whereby the request of the petitioner for release of the passport was rejected.
2. Petitioner is an accused in Crime No.685/2023 of Kodumon Police Station, registered based on a complaint filed by the wife of the petitioner alleging commission of offence punishable under Sections 498 A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code .
3. Petitioner obtained Annexure A4 anticipatory bail from this Court wherein a direction was issued to surrender his passport before the investigating officer and in case he does not have a passport, to file an affidavit with that effect. Following the direction contained in Annexure A4 bail order petitioner appeared before the investigating officer and co-operated with the investigation and that no arrest has been made and a notice under Section 41 A of the Cr.PC alone was served on the petitioner. The petitioner was asked to surrender his passport and he had complied with the said direction and thereafter the passport has been submitted by the investigating officer before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-II, Pathanamthitta.
4. Petitioner was working abroad and if he does not return back abroad he will lose his employment. Thereupon petitioner filed Annexure A7 application before the Jurisdictional Court seeking release of his passport which was rejected by Ext.P8 order. The reasons stated in Ext.P8 is mainly that one of the condition imposed by the High Court while granting anticipatory bail is to surrender his passport before the investigating officer and further that the petitioner was directed to appear before the investigating officer for a period of three months, the period of which is not over.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor upon instruction submitted that the investigation is over and the petitioner was never arrested and he appeared on issuance of Section 41 A notice.
6. The passport has been handed over to the investigating officer though he was not arrested as part of the investigation and further that the chargesheet has already been laid, and therefore it is not necessary for the petitioner to appear before the investigating officer as directed in the Annexure A4 order. In view of the above, I am of the view that the stand taken by the jurisdictional Court in Annexure A8 order cannot be sustained. It is a fact that the petitioner is employed abroad and if he does not return back he will lose his employment. For the reason that the petitioner is involved in a crime does not mean that petitioner cannot travel abroad in connection with his employment.
Therefore, I am of the view that the matter requires reconsideration.
Accordingly Annexure A8 order is set aside with a consequential direction to the jurisdictional Court to reconsider Annexure A7 application for release of the passport at the earliest, at any rate within an outer limit of 10 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
