A court cannot indefinitely deny a defendant's overseas travel during an ongoing investigation, balancing legal obligations with individual employment needs.

ORDER

Petitioner is the 1^st accused in Crime No.472 of 2022 registered at the Kuthuparamba Police Station alleging commission of the offences punishable under Section 420 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code . According to the prosecution, petitioner and the other three accused were associated with a company named Qnet Ltd., a Hong Kong based multi-level marketing company and by promising to provide employment in the company, accused collected total sum of Rs.61,48,500/- from the defacto complainant and 35 others. After collecting the money, neither the promised employment was given nor the amount refunded. The petitioner was arrested in connection with the crime on 22.03.3024, and on production before the Magistrate, was granted interim bail on the same day. Thereafter, he was granted regular bail as per Annexure-B order dated 25.03.2024, subject to certain conditions. Condition No.2 in Annexure.B required the petitioner to surrender his passport within seven days. Accordingly, petitioner surrendered his passport and on 14.08.2024, filed an application seeking release of the passport as he had to go abroad in connection with his employment. The court below having rejected the petition as per Annexure-D order, this Crl.M.C. is filed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that, other than assertively stating that the accused had collected huge amounts from the defacto complainant and others, absolutely no material is produced by the prosecution to substantiate the allegation. It is pointed out that, on 16.12.2024, this Court had directed the investigating officer to file a report clarifying the role attributed to the petitioner and in the report filed, the same allegations are repeated, without an iota of proof. Finally it is contended that the reasons which had prompted the court below to grant bail to the petitioner are now projected as reasons for rejecting the prayer for release of his passport.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor raised serious objections against releasing petitioner’s passport, by pointing out that the case is still under investigation and two of the accused are yet to be arrested. According to the Prosecutor, if the petitioner is permitted to go abroad, that will hamper the investigation.

4. Indubitably, petitioner was granted interim bail by the Magistrate on the day of production itself and regular bail, after three days. The petitioner has so far complied with the bail conditions imposed. He filed the application seeking release of the passport only after expiry of the period for which he was directed to appear before the investigating officer. Moreover, the application was moved at a time when the petitioner was required to travel abroad in connection with a conference. The learned counsel fairly submitted that the conference is over and pointed out that the nature of his client’s employment calls for frequent foreign travel.

5. Having heard the learned counsel on both sides, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner cannot be denied permission to go abroad indefinitely, by reason of a pending investigation. At the same time, considering the gravity of the allegations, blanket permission to leave the country cannot also be granted.

Taking the above factors into consideration, the Crl.M.C. is disposed of by quashing Annexure-D order and permitting the petitioner to file a fresh petition for release of his passport and to travel abroad, specifically citing the reason for submitting the petition along with supporting documents and travel plan. If such a petition is filed and the court is convinced about the reason stated, petitioner’s passport can be released and permission granted to leave the country for s