Personal liberty cannot be curtailed without sufficient justification; arbitrary detention is unlawful.

ORDER

Aggrieved by Annexure F order passed by the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class – I, Kochi, rejecting the petitioner's application seeking the return of his passport, this Criminal Miscellaneous Case (Crl. M.C) is filed.

2. The petitioner is a citizen of the Philippines. He was employed as the Third Officer on board the Vessel MSC Elsa 3 (IMO No. 91232211) sailing under a Liberian flag. On 25.05.2025, the vessel reportedly sank in the Arabian Sea, west of Thottappally, Alappuzha. Alleging that the vessel sank due to negligent handling by the crew and her containers fell into the sea, which obstructed the navigation channels, caused environmental degradation and adversely impacting traditional fishing activities, the Fort Kochi Coastal Police Station registered Crime No.14/2025 for the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 282 , 285, 286, 287 and 288 read with Section 3 (5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita , 2023.

3. On 12.06.2025, as part of the investigation of the crime, the Investigating Officer seized the passports of five crew members, including that of the petitioner, as evidenced by Annexure B receipt. Simultaneously, treating the incident as a marine casualty, the Director General of Shipping, Ministry of Ports, Government of India (for short, ‘DGS’), initiated a parallel statutory inquiry. All the crew members were detained. Subsequently, by Annexure C report, the DGS has informed the Mercantile Marine Department (for brevity, ‘MMD’) that it had no objection to release all the non-essential crew members of the vessel, while specifying seven essential crew, namely the Master, Chief Officer, Chief Engineer, Second Engineer, ETO, AB and MM, were required to be detained for the investigation. Consequently, 15 non-essential crew members were released and have been permitted to return to their respective countries of origin. Although the petitioner’s name was not included in the list, he could not return to his country because the Investigating Officer retained his passport. Accordingly, the petitioner filed CMP No. 1153/2025 before the above-named Court seeking the return of his passport. However, by Annexure F order, the learned Magistrate has dismissed the application on the findings that the technical cause of the incident can be ascertained upon receipt of the MMD report, and that the petitioner’s presence may be necessary for further investigation of the crime. Hence, the petitioner’s passport cannot be released to him. Annexure F order is ex-facie erroneous and unsustainable in law.

4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently argues that, in view of Annexure C letter issued by the DSG, the competent statutory authority to investigate such incidents, explicitly stating that only seven of the essential crew members need to be detained in India and that the petitioner’s name not included in the list, and further that the petitioner is unnecessarily being detained in India since 24.05.2025, without even being named as an accused in the crime, the retention of his passport by the Investigating Officer is arbitrary, high handed and an infringement of his right to life. Therefore, Annexure F order may be set aside, and the petitioner’s passport may be released to him, subject to any stringent condition that this Court may impose.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor seriously opposes the Crl. M.C. She submits that the culpability of the crew members can be ascertained only after the receipt of the MMD's report. If the petitioner’s passport is returned to him, he may flee the country, and the investigation may get stalled. The Crl. M.C is premature. There is