IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.S.DIAS, J
DR.K.N.BHASKARANUNNI @ KAKKOTH NAIR BHASKARAN UNNI – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
CRL.MC NO. 2618 OF 2021
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. accused seeks return of surrendered passport. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. no records found for passport surrender. (Para 4) |
| 3. court permits fresh passport application. (Para 6) |
ORDER
The petitioner was the accused in Crime No.411/2004 registered by the Perinthalmanna Police Station for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 409 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code . By Annexure 1 order the Court of the Session, Manjeri, granted the petitioner an order of pre-arrest bail subject to conditions. One of the conditions in the order was that the petitioner shall surrender his passport before the Investigation Officer. In compliance with Annexure 1 order, the petitioner had surrendered his passport before the Investigating Officer. Subsequently, the dispute which led to the registration of the crime was amicably settled between the petitioner and the de facto complainant. Although the petitioner approached the Investigating Officer for return of his passport, he has refused to return the same. Hence, the Investigating Officer in the above crime may be directed to return the petitioner’s passport. Hence, the Crl.M.C.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
3. Annexure 1 order was passed on 03.08.2004.
Undisputedly, the petitioner was directed to surrender his passport before the Investigating Officer.
4. It is not discernible from the materials on record whether the petitioner had surrendered his passport. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor on instruction, submits that even though the Station House Officer made a valiant search in the Police Station the passport could not be traced and there are no records to establish that the petitioner had surrendered his passport as per Annexure 1 order. The said submission is recorded.
6. Considering the fact that the petitioner has approached this Court for the return of his passport after the long lapse of twenty-one years, I am not inclined to grant the relief prayed for in the Crl.M.C. Nonetheless, I reserve the right of the petitioner to work out his remedies in accordance with the law to obtain a fresh passport, especially in view of the stand of the Station House Officer.
In the aforesaid circumstances, I dispose the Crl.M.C, by permitting the petitioner to apply for a fresh passport, if he is otherwise entitled to possess a passport and in accordance with the law.
Sd/-
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.