The court allows renewal of passports for accused under conditions of trial cooperation and potential employment.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN WEDNESDAY, THE 17^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025/26TH AGRAHAYANA, 1947 CRL.MC NO. 11267 OF 2025 CRIME NO.RC15(A)/CBI/KER/2007 OF CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 28.11.2025 IN CC NO.7 OF

2021 OF SPE/CBI COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.4:

JOBI K MATHEW AGED 54 YEARS S/O K M MATHEW, RESIDING AT KALLEPARAMBIL HOUSE, ETTUMANOOR, PATTITHANAM P.O, KOTTAYAM -, PIN - 686631 BY ADVS.

SHRI.SREEJITH S. NAIR SHRI.SASTHAMANGALAM S. AJITHKUMAR (SR.)

SRI.SATHEESH MOHANAN SMT.MAHIMA RESPONDENT / COMPLAINAN T :

CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION REPRESENTED BY ITS SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 SPL PP CBI, SREELAL.N.WARRIER THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.12.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

Dated this the 17^th day of December, 2025 Order dated 28.11.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.425/2025 in C.C.No.7/2011 on the files of the Special Court (CBI), Thiruvananthapuram is under challenge in this petition filed under Section 528 of the the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for CBI. Perused the order impugned.

3. On facts, the petitioner is the 4^th accused in C.C.No.7/2011 on the files of the Special Court (CBI), Thiruvananthapuram, where the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 13 (2) r/w (1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act , 1988, by the accused person.

4. The grievance of the petitioner, as canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is that, even though as per the impugned order, the learned Special Judge allowed the renewal of the passport of the petitioner acting on the prayer in the petition to renew the passport, the period of renewal is limited to two years instead of 10 years. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that at present, the petitioner is employed in Dubai and renewal of his passport for ten years is necessary to secure his job, otherwise, he would be in trouble.

5. Opposing this contention, the learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI filed a written objection.

Paragraph Nos.5 to 7 in the objection are as under:

5. It is submitted that the petitioner had previously evaded the process of law and absconded soon after the registration of the present case. In an attempt to avoid investigation, he clandestinely crossed the border of India on 14.09.2007 by foot. This conduct clearly reflects the extent to which the petitioner is willing to go to escape from the clutches of law.

He was brought back to India only through extradition proceedings. In these circumstances, if permitted to travel abroad for employment, there is a grave apprehension that he will not return to face trial.

6. It is submitted that the petitioner has no substantial roots in Kerala that would compel his return, and there exists a strong likelihood that he will abscond and evade justice if allowed to leave the country.

7. It is submitted that the trial is towards the final stage of prosecution with 9 more witnesses including the IO’s to be examined. Further the presence of the petitioner is required for the purpose of questioning u/s section 313 of Cr. PC. It is pertinent to submit that though the alleged requirement of extension of passport is for employment purposes, there is no piece of material which is seen served on the prosecution to show that he is looking for or he has been offe