A habitual offender must seek permission from the trial court for all pending cases before applying for passport travel.

ORDER

The petitioner is the 5^th accused in Crime No.675 of 2025 registered with the Mannuthy Police Station, Thrissur alleging the commission of offences punishable under Sections 126 (2), 351, 296(b), 109(1), 121(1) and 121(2) r/w Section 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (‘ BNS ’ in short) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act , 1984.

2. The petitioner has stated in the criminal miscellaneous case that he is totally innocent of the allegations levelled against him. He is only 24 years of age. He has secured an employment in the United Arab Emirates. He does not have a passport till date. Therefore, he proposes to file an application for issuance of passport. However, in view of the pendency of the above case, his application may not be considered without a No Objection Certificate issued by the jurisdictional court. Accordingly, the petitioner filed an application before the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate-III, Thrissur (Trial Court, in short) to issue a No Objection Certificate. But, by Annexure A4 impugned order, the Trial Court had dismissed the application, stating that there are certain cases registered against the petitioner. In Thadevoose Sebastian v. Regional Passport Officer and Another [ 2021 (5) KHC 625 ], this Court has held that there is no legal embargo for an accused to travel abroad, due to the pendency of a crime. This aspect was not considered by the Trial Court. Hence, Annexure A4 order may be set aside.

3. The Investigating Officer has filed a report, inter alia, stating that the petitioner is a habitual offender. He is an accused in 4 other crimes registered by the very same Police Station, namely Crime Nos.104 of 2021, 653 of 2022, 11 of 2023 and 674 of 2025. It is taking into consideration the antecedents of the petitioner that the Trial Court has dismissed the petitioner’s application for a No Objection Certificate. Hence, the Crl.M.C may be dismissed.

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

5. Admittedly, Crime No.675 of 2025 registered at the Mannuthy Police Station is the most recent crime. The petitioner does not dispute the fact that he is an accused in the above mentioned four crimes. It is without seeking permission from the said court in respect to the above crimes that the petitioner has submitted an application for a No Objection Certificate in the present crime, to apply for a passport. This, according to me, is untenable, because, the petitioner ought to have obtained permission from the trial court in respect of all the above crimes, and only then can he apply for the passport and then seek permission to travel abroad. Therefore, I do not find any extraordinary circumstances to exercise the inherent powers of this Court or find any error or illegality in Annexure A4 order, that, as the petitioner is a habitual offender, he cannot be granted permission to travel abroad.

In the afore circumstances, I dismiss this Crl.M.C by confirming Annexure A4 order. Nonetheless, it is clarified that it would be up to the petitioner to seek permission in all the cases that are registered against him and then apply for a passport, in accordance with law.

Sd/-