The court recognized the right to travel while balancing trial participation requirements, permitting an accused to travel abroad under specified conditions.

C.S.DIAS, J.

---------------------------------------

CRL.MC NOS. 128 AND 141 OF 2026 -----------------------------------------------------

Dated this the 9^th day of January, 2026

COMMON ORDER

As these criminal miscellaneous cases pertain to the same crime and the same accused, they are consolidated and are disposed of by this common order.

2. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.2512/2025 registered by the Changanasserry Police Station, Kottayam, alleging the commission of the offences punishable under Section 296(b), 118(1) and 110 of the Bharitya Nyaya Sanhita , 2023, (in short, ‘BNS’).

3. By Annexure A2 order, the petitioner was enlarged on bail by the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Changanassery, (Trial Court), subject to (vi) conditions. As per condition No.(i), the petitioner was directed to surrender his passport within three days, which he had done. The said order was passed on 16.12.2025. The investigation in the case is practically complete and recoveries have been effected. The petitioner is working in the United Kingdom. He has to attend a hearing before his employer in the United Kingdom. The petitioner proposes to travel to the United Kingdom on 11.01.2026 and return on 10.02.2026. If the petitioner does not attend the hearing, there is every likelihood of him suffering severe hardship and prejudice.

4. Although the petitioner had filed applications to return his passport and permit him to travel abroad, the Trial Court has dismissed both the applications as reflected in Annexure A6 orders produced in both the cases. Annexure A6 orders in both the cases are erroneous and unreasonable. Hence, the Crl.MCs.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submits that, the investigation in the case is practically complete and the final report is proposed to be filed. However, stringent conditions may be imposed on the petitioner so that he returns to India and participates in the trial.

7. Admittedly, the petitioner was enlarged on bail by the Trial Court as per Annexure A2 order.

8. It is the petitioner’s case that he is employed in the United Kingdom. The employer has initiated disciplinary proceedings against him, on a false complaint filed by his wife, that too, in his absence, and adverse orders have been passed. The petitioner has preferred an appeal before the competent authority of his employer. He is directed to attend the hearing, failing which his employment would be terminated.

9. The petitioner has produced his flight tickets to travel and return from the United Kingdom.

10. Taking into consideration the peculiar facts and the circumstances of the cases, I am of the definite view that the petitioner should be permitted to travel abroad, subject to the condition that his Counsel files an application before the Trial Court seeking his permanent exemption and also for permission to avail the electronic video linkage just in case he is unable to return back to India within the prescribed time period.

Accordingly, I allow the Crl.MCs in the following manner;

(i.) The orders in CMP Nos.6118/2025 and 12/2026 are set aside.

(ii.) The Trial Court is directed to forthwith return the passport to the petitioner on a proper acknowledgment.

(iii.) The petitioner is permitted to travel to the United Kingdom, subject to the condition that his counsel files an applications before the Trial Court seeking his permanent exemption and also to avail the electronic video linkage as per the Kerala Electronic Video Linkage Rules.

(iv.)If such applications are filed, the Trial Court is directed to consider and dispose of the applications in accordance with law.

(v.) If t