Defendant's travel rights and trial participation balanced through passport reissuance order.

C.S.DIAS,J.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Crl. M.C.No. 71 of 2026 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Dated this the 16th day of January, 2026 O R D E R The petitioners are the accused 1 and 3 in C.C.No.112 of 2016 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam ('Trial Court', in short), which has originated from Crime No.1225 of 2015 registered by the Central Police Station, Ernakulam, alleging the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 120B , 406, 420 and

477A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code .

2. The petitioners state that they are husband and wife and are residing in Bosania and Montenegro. The petitioners have valid Indian passports. The 1^st petitioner's passport is valid till 21.08.2029 and the 2^nd petitioner's passport is valid till 31.05.2027. However, the pages of the passport are exhausted. Therefore, the petitioners had approached the 3^rd respondent to reissue fresh passports to them, with a validity of 10 years. However, the 3^rd respondent demanded the petitioners to obtain permission from the court where the case is pending. Although the petitioners filed an application for permission to renew the passports, the Trial Court, by Annexure A2 order, has directed the passports to be re-issued only with a validity period as per the current passports. Annexure A2 order is unreasonable and unjustifiable. If the petitioners are reissued with fresh passports with validity only as per their current passports, the same may adversely affect the petitioners' right of residence in their present Country, in view of the rules of the said Country. Therefore, Annexure A2 order may be modified and the competent authority of the 3^rd respondent be directed to reissue the passports in favour of the petitioners with a validity for a further period of 10 years.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned DSGI appearing for the respondents 2 and 3.

4. On going through Annexure A2, I find that the Trial Court has, in principle, ordered the petitioners'

passports to be re-issued.

5. The petitioners' limited relief is that their passports shall be re-issued with a validity of 10 years. I find the above submission to be reasonable and justifiable. Moreover, I find that the petitioners have also got themselves enlarged on bail as per the directions of this Court in Crl.M.C.No.9802 of 2024. Therefore, there is no question of the petitioners' fleeing from justice. Nonetheless, in order to ensure that the petitioners participate in the ensuing trial, I am of the definite view that the petitioners should be directed to file applications for permanent exemption and to avail the electronic video linkage as per the Electronic Video Linkage Rules for Courts (Kerala), 2021, through their counsel, to ensure that the trial is not affected.

In the aforesaid circumstances, I allow the Crl.M.C. in the following manner:

i) Annexure A2 order is modified, by directing the competent authority of the Indian Embassy in Budapest to reissue the passports to the petitioners with a validity of 10 years from the date of issue ii) The petitioners shall file applications through their counsel before the Trial Court, within 10 days from today, for their permanent exemption and also to avail the electronic video linkage, with the specific undertaking that the petitioner shall not dispute their identity in the trial; and iii) If the above applications are filed, the Trial Court is directed to consider and dispose of the applications, in accordance with law, keeping in mind the law laid down by this Court in Rameshan v. State of Ker