The court reinforced the right to travel abroad as constitutionally protected, allowing passport renewal amidst ongoing trial delays.

ORDER

The petitioner is the second accused in C.C. No.

330/2016 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Pattambi (‘Trial Court’, for short), which has originated from Crime No. 128/2013 registered by the Thrithala Police Station, Palakkad, alleging the commission of the offence punishable under Section 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The petitioner has stated in the Criminal Miscellaneous Case that he is employed in Abu Dhabi. The petitioner’s applications for a grant of permanent exemption and permission to travel abroad were allowed by Annexure 1 order. The petitioner has been scrupulously complying with the conditions in the said order. The validity of the petitioner's passport is due to expire on 19.06.2026. Accordingly, the petitioner had filed an application to renew his passport. However, by Annexure 6 order, the Trial Court has dismissed the application on the ground that the trial in the case is at its fag end. Annexure 6 order is unreasonable and unjustifiable. In fact, the case was posted for judgment on 25.08.2025. The Trial Court suo-motu reopened the evidence and has now issued summons and warrants to the witnesses, and adjourned the case to 23.01.2026. In view of the coercive proceedings initiated against the witnesses, there is no likelihood of the trial in the case being concluded in the near future. The petitioner continues to abide by the conditions already stipulated in Annexure 1 order. The petitioner's presence is not required. Therefore, the permission may be granted to the petitioner to renew the passport.

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

4. Undisputedly, by Annexure 1 common order dated 31.01.2024, the Trial Court granted permission to the petitioner to travel abroad and to appear through his counsel. The petitioner has been scrupulously complying with the order. In the meantime, by Annexure 3 order, the petitioner's passport was renewed on one occasion for a period of one year. Now the petitioner’s present application has been dismissed stating that the trial is at the fag end.

5. A reading of Annexure 6 proceedings sheet shows that the case was reserved for judgment on 20.08.2025. However, the Trial Court suo-motu reopened the case and has now initiated coercive proceedings against one of the witnesses. This by itself establishes that there is a likelihood of the trial getting further protracted.

6. On a consideration of the facts that the Trial Court had earlier granted the petitioner permission to renew his passport and that there is a likelihood of the trial getting protracted, I am satisfied that the permission can be granted to the petitioner to renew his passport, failing which it will be an infringement of the petitioner’s fundamental right to travel abroad as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. Thus, I am satisfied and convinced that this is a fit case to exercise the inherent powers of this Court under Section

528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023.

In the aforesaid circumstances, I allow the Crl.M.C, by setting aside Annexure 6 order and ordering the additional third respondent to renew the petitioner's passport with the validity of two years, subject to the conditions that the petitioner continues to comply with the condition Nos. (1) and (2) in Annexure 1 order, and also files an application to avail the electronic video linkage as envisaged under the Electronic Video Linkage Rules for Courts (Kerala), 2021, within three weeks from the date of this order, with a specific undertaking that he would dispute his identity. If such an application is filed within the above permitted time period, the Trial Court is directed to consider and dispos