SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 50794

HIGH COURT OF KERALA
K.HARIPAL, J
MANOJ A.S. – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KERALA – Respondent


Advocates:
ANOOP.V.NAIR, RAMESH CHAND, DEVI P.A.K.ANANDA KRISHNAN

JUDGMENT

Petitioner is the 1st accused in C.C. No. 51 of 2020 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-III, North Paravur where he faces allegations under Sections 341 , 294(b), 506(i) read with Section 34 of the IPC .

2. According to the learned counsel, on his application by Ext. P7 order he was permitted to renew the passport for a period of five years. But ultimately the Court held that he shall not go abroad without prior permission of the Court. According to the learned counsel, petitioner is running a travel agency by name Akbar Travels, in connection with the business he will have to travel abroad frequently and such a condition causes considerable prejudice and inconvenience to him. Referring to Ext.P5 order which was issued on similar circumstances, it was pointed out that no such condition has been imposed. According to the learned counsel, registration of the crime is the aftermath of a dispute with the tenant, that the Rent Control proceedings are in progress.

3. After hearing counsel on both sides, I am of the view that such a condition, condition in paragraph 11 in Ext.P7 order is onerous. Once permission to renew passport for five years is granted,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top