The court supports business travel based on compliance with legal conditions and prior permissions.

ORDER

The petitioner is the 15thaccused in Crime No.153 of 2024 registered by the Cyber Crime Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, alleging the commission of offences underSections 419, 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 read with 34 of theIndian Penal Codeand 66D of the information Technology Act.

2. By Annexure B order, the petitioner was enlarged on bail subject to conditions. As per condition No.4, the petitioner was directed to surrender his passport before the jurisdictional court at the time of execution of the bond. Consequently, the petitioner surrendered his passport before the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram (‘Trial Court’, in short). The petitioner has business interest abroad. Accordingly, he filed an application seeking for modification of the above condition. However, by Annexure C order, the jurisdictional court dismissed the application. Subsequently, by Annexure H order, this Court permitted the petitioner to travel abroad for a period of three months, subject to the condition that he furnishes the details of his travel. On the strength of Annexure H order, the petitioner went abroad and he has returned. However, the petitioner has to again visit the Republic of Sierra Leone, for the purpose of his business. Accordingly, the petitioner filed another application before the jurisdictional court seeking permission. However, by Annexure I order, the said application was dismissed. Annexure I order is ex facie unreasonable and unjustifiable. The Trial Court has failed to consider that this Court had granted permission to the petitioner to travel abroad for a period of three months. Hence, Annexure I order is liable to be quashed.

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

4. The learned Public Prosecutor concedes to the fact that, although the crime was registered on 03.07.2024, the investigation is not complete and the final report has not been filed.

5. By Annexure B order, this Court had enlarged the petitioner on bail subject to the condition that he surrenders his passport before the Trial Court. Subsequently, by Annexure H order, this Court permitted the petitioner to travel abroad for a period of three months. The petitioner has scrupulously complied with the conditions in Annexures B and H orders.

6. As this Court has already granted permission to the petitioner to travel abroad on an earlier occasion and the petitioner complying with all the conditions mentioned, I do not find any legal impediment in permitting the petitioner to travel abroad again for the purpose of his business, which if curtailed would adversely affect his business and future prospects. Hence, I am inclined to allow the application, subject to the condition that the petitioner files applications before the Trial Court seeking permanent exemption of his personal appearance and also to avail the electronic video linkage as per the provisions of the Electronic Video Linkage Rules for Courts (Kerala), 2021 (In short, Rules) and the law laid down by this Court in Abhil C.R. v. State of Kerala [2025 KHC OnLine 1650] and Rameshan v. State of Kerala [2025 (6) KHC 545] . In the aforesaid circumstances, I am inclined to allow the Crl.M.C. in the following manner:

(i) Annexure I order is set aside.

(ii) C.M.P. No. 4491 of 2025 of the Trial Court is allowed, subject to the condition that the petitioner files applications seeking for his permanent exemption and to avail the electronic video linkage as per the Rules and an undertaking that he would appear before the Trial Court as and when directed, and otherwise, through his counsel, without disputing his identity, within a week from today.