Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Ziyad Rahman A. A, J
MUHAMMED SHEMEEN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Crl.MC/5334/2022
Bail - Employment - Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 341, 324, 326, 506, 307, 302, 34; Arms Act - Section 27 - The court allowed the petitioner to travel abroad for employment despite serious allegations against him, emphasizing the constitutional right to movement and the necessity of balancing this right with the nature of the charges.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, charged with serious offenses under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Arms Act, was granted bail in 2020 with conditions including passport surrender. He sought permission to retrieve his passport and travel abroad for employment, while the prosecution opposed it due to the gravity of the allegations.
Finding of the Court:
The court acknowledged the severity of the charges but noted the petitioner had complied with bail conditions and was only seeking to exercise his right to pursue employment abroad. The court concluded that exceptional circumstances were not present to justify denying the petitioner’s request.
Issues: Whether the petitioner could be permitted to travel abroad for employment despite pending serious criminal charges.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the right to movement, including to seek employment abroad, is a constitutional right that should not be unduly restricted unless justified by exceptional circumstances linked to the case at hand.
Final Decision: The petitioner was permitted to travel abroad for six months contingent upon specific conditions.
ORDER
Dated this the 25th day of August, 2022 These Crl.M.C.s are filed by the 3rd accused in crime No.1009/2020 of Tirur Police Station, which is now pending as S.C. No.233/2022 before the Additional Sessions Court, Tirur. The aforesaid case is registered against the petitioner and two others for the offences punishable under Sections 341 , 324, 326, 506, 307, 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 27 of the Arms Act .
2. The petitioner was released on bail as per Annexure-1 order passed by the Sessions Court, Manjeri, and one of the conditions imposed by the learned Sessions Judge, in the said order was that he shall surrender the passport. In compliance of the said direction, the petitioner has already surrendered the passport. The aforesaid order was passed on 21.12.2020. Subsequently, the petitioner submitted Crl.M.P. Nos.384/2022 and 385/2022 for release of the passport and for seeking exemption from personal appearance respectively. As per order dated
12.07.2022, which is produced as Annexure-4 in both the Crl.M.C.s, the said applications were dismissed. These Crl.M.C.s were filed challenging the aforesaid order.
3. Heard Sri. P. Venugopal, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. M.P. Prasanth, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor appearing for the State in Crl.M.C. 5335/2022 and Sri. C.S. Hrithwik, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor for the State in Crl.M.C. No.5334/2022.
4. The contention of the petitioner is that, now he has got an offer of employment abroad and to substantiate the same, the petitioner places reliance upon Annexure-1. It is pointed out that, since the case is of the year 2022, at any rate, the trial of the same is likely to take some time and the petitioner is seeking permission to go abroad for a period of six months.
5. However, on the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor seriously opposes the aforesaid prayer. It is pointed out that, the allegations raised against the petitioner and other accused are very serious in nature and the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the applications taking note of the gravity of the offences. Therefore, no circumstances are in existence warranting interference in the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge.
6. I have gone through the records and considered the rival contentions raised before the court. It is true that the allegations against the petitioner are serious. However, the fact remains that the petitioner was granted bail in the year 2020 and since then he is complying with all the conditions imposed as per the said order. The passport of the petitioner was also surrendered. Now the prayer to release the passport and to exempt him from personal appearance is sought to enable him to go abroad for the purpose of pursuing employment. It is seen that the petitioner is aged just 22 years. In my view, merely because of the reason that the petitioner is implicated in an offence, the right of the petitioner to pursue his employment cannot be denied. The right of movement of a person, including the right to go abroad for the purpose of employment is a Constitutional right available to him and unless there are exceptional reasons, the same cannot be interfered with. It is true that the offences alleged against the petitioner are serious, but that by itself cannot be treated as a reason to deny the relief to pursue his employment. In these cases, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Sessions Case is of the year 2022, and at any rate, the disposal of the same is likely to take some time. Therefore, since the permission sought for by the petitioner is only for a period of six months, it can be granted subject to certain conditions to ensure that the petitioner returns to the country to subject himself to legal proceedings.
7. In such circumstances, Annexure-4 order is set aside and the petitioner is granted permission to go abroad for a period of six months from the date of
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
