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
| 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.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.