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

2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 37902

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
V. G. Arun, J
GAFOOR – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
CRL.MC NO. 5261 OF 2025 | CP NO.27 OF 2005



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.ARUN ASHOK, SMT.NEENA JAMES, SMT.ANASWARA K.P.
For the Respondents: O.M.SHALINA, SRI. M.C. ASHI

The Sessions Court holds exclusive jurisdiction to decide on applications concerning bail conditions under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

Headnote:The present case, dealing with the release of a passport impinged by bail conditions, draws attention to the implications of freedom of movement under Article 21 of the Constitution. The court observes that the power to decide on such a release now legally rests with the Sessions Court, as stated in the 2nd proviso to Section 232 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Moving forward, the Criminal Miscellaneous Case is hence disposed of, allowing the petitioner to seek relief from the jurisdictional Sessions Court.

Table of Content
1. factual basis of the petitioner's request. (Para 1)
2. arguments regarding the constitutional right to movement. (Para 2)
3. statutory limitations on jurisdiction of committal court. (Para 4)

ORDER

Dated this the 19th day of June, 2025 Petitioner is the 9th accused in Crime No.109 of

2004 registered at the Ponnani Police Station, for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 448 and 307 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner’s passport was surrendered, since such a condition was imposed while granting him bail. As the petitioner is desirous of working abroad, he moved an application before the committal court seeking release of the passport. The application having been dismissed by Annexure A1 order, this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is filed.

2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the order refusing to release the passport impinges the petitioner’s right to freedom of movement guaranteed by the Constitution. According to the Counsel, the passport should have been released by imposing appropriate conditions.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the

2nd proviso to Section 232 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 (‘the BNSS ’ for short) denudes the committal court of the power to pass orders on applications filed before it. It is pointed out that, the case has now been committed to the Sessions Court as per Annexure A2 order.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor is right in his submission that the committal court cannot pass orders on applications filed before it, in view of the 2nd proviso to Section 232 of BNSS , which reads as under;

“Provided further that any application filed before the Magistrate by the accused or the victim or any person authorised by such person in a case triable by Court of Session, shall be forwarded to the Court of Session with the committal of the case.”

Therefore the petitioner’s remedy is to move the Sessions Court concerned, once the case is numbered.

The Criminal Miscellaneous Case is hence disposed of by permitting the petitioner to move the jurisdictional Sessions Court, and directing that court to pass appropriate orders on the application, uninfluenced by the observations in Annexure A1 order.

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 Back to top