The court determined that the completion of investigation allowed the accused to travel abroad with stipulated conditions, emphasizing legal adherence and safeguards.

COMMON ORDER

Dated this the 26^th day of February, 2026 As these Criminal Miscellaneous Cases are filed by the same accused in Crime No.843/2022 registered by the Sreekandapuram Police Station, Kannur, they are consolidated, jointly heard and being disposed of by this common order.

2. The petitioner is the accused in the above crime that has been registered against him for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 465 , 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 12 (1)(b)

of the Passports Act .

3. The gravamen of the prosecution case is that, the petitioner had obtained a fake passport by using fabricated documents.

4. The petitioner has stated in the Criminal Miscellaneous Cases that, he was enlarged on bail by the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Taliparamba [‘the learned Magistrate’, for short] by order dated 25.10.2024 in C.M.P.No.7425/2024 (Annexure-1 in Crl.M.C.No.235/2026) subject to conditions. As per condition No.3, the petitioner was directed not to leave the State of Kerala without prior permission of the Court. Subsequently, he filed applications for release of his passport and for modifying the above bail condition. However, by the common order dated 24.02.2025 in C.M.P.Nos.1410/2025 and 1411/2025, the learned Magistrate dismissed both the applications. Though the petitioner challenged the order before the Court of Sessions, Thalassery, the same was also dismissed by Annexure-3 order. The petitioner is running a small business in Republic of Oman. He came down to India on a short leave to visit his family. It is during this period that he was falsely implicated in the crime. The petitioner has availed financial assistance from the Kerala State Co- operative Bank to construct his house and conduct the business. Due to the present financial distress, the bank has initiated proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act , 2002. Though this Court has permitted the petitioner to pay the defaulted amounts in 12 instalments as per Annexure-4 judgment, the petitioner does not have the financial resources to pay the outstanding amount. In the above eventuality, it is absolutely imperative for the petitioner to go abroad and continue his business so that he can clear his financial liability. The petitioner is willing to abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Therefore, the common order in C.M.P.Nos.1410/2025 and 1411/2025 may be set aside and the petitioner’s passport may be directed to be returned and also he may be permitted to travel abroad. Hence, the Crl.M.Cs.

5. The learned Deputy Solicitor General of India has filed a statement, inter alia, stating that under Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act , 1967, the Passport Authority can refuse to issue a passport or other travel documents to an accused. However, in certain cases passport for a limited duration can be issued. In the present crime, as the investigation is in progress, the question of granting travel permission falls strictly within the domain of the Court. Nonetheless, if this Court directs the 3^rd respondent is willing to issue a passport.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India.

7. The sole reason to reject the petitioner’s application for return of passport and to delete condition No.3 in the common order in C.M.P.Nos.1410/2025 and 1411/2025 was that there is a chance that the petitioner may tamper with the evidence and there is a flight risk.

8. The learned Public Prosecutor very