Court denies inherent powers to grant relief to absconding accused, stressing maintenance of judicial integrity.

ORDER

The petitioner is the accused in L.P.C No.46/2021 on the file of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Payyannur ('Trial Court’, in short), which has originated from Crime No. 393/2020 registered by the Pazhayangadi Police Station, Kannur, alleging the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 326 and 308 r/w Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code .

2. The petitioner has stated in the Criminal Miscellaneous Case that, he is permanently employed in Kuwait. The validity of his visa had expired on 01.09.2025. Accordingly, he approached the authorities in Kuwait to renew his visa. As per the rules in Kuwait, the petitioner’s passport should have a validity of more than one year for renewing the visa. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted an application for a renewal of passport to the Indian Embassy/Mission in Kuwait. However, the petitioner was informed to get a No Objection Certificate from the Court, since he is an accused in L.P.C. No. 46/2021. Consequently, the petitioner filed an application before the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Payyannur, seeking permission to renew his passport. Nonetheless, by Annexure IV order, the learned Magistrate had dismissed the application on the ground that the petitioner has never appeared before the said court. Moreover, the petitioner’s passport will expire on 09.05.2026. Hence, the Court was not inclined to grant a No Objection Certificate in favour of the petitioner. Annexure IV order is ex facie erroneous and unsustainable in law. Hence, the Crl.M.C.

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

4. The crime against the petitioner was registered in the year 2020. Admittedly, the petitioner has not appeared before the said Court and has not got himself enlarged on bail till date. The case against him has been transferred to the long-pending register, and steps under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. have been initiated against him.

5. In Balmukund Singh Gautam v. State of Madhya Pradesh , [2026 INSC 157] , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held that if coercive proceedings, including non-bailable warrants, are issued against the accused, the High Courts may decline to invoke the exercise its inherent powers. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held that if an accused has been absconding for a considerable period of time, it would be a mockery of the judicial process to exercise the inherent powers of this Court.

6. Taking into consideration the fact that there is a long-pending case against the petitioner and the validity of the petitioner's passport will expire on 09.05.2026. I do not find any error in Annexure IV warranting interference by this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS.

In the aforesaid circumstances, the Crl.M.C. is dismissed, but without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to appear before the Trial Court and get himself enlarged on bail.

Sd/-