SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 9681

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



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)
For the Respondents: SR.PP.SRI.C.S.HRITHWIK

Court denied return of passport due to lack of traceability, allowing application for a fresh passport instead.

Headnote:The petitioner, accused in Crime No. 411/2004 under IPC Sections 409 and 420, sought return of passport surrendered pursuant to a pre-arrest bail order. The court observed no records of passport surrender were found, and after twenty-one years, declined to grant the relief but permitted application for a fresh passport. Issues considered included the tracing of the passport and the long delay in relief request.

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/-

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top