Permanent exemption from appearance can be granted to an accused if reasonable conditions are imposed and prior permissions are adhered to.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS FRIDAY, THE 13^TH DAY OF MARCH 2026 / 22ND PHALGUNA, 1947 CRL.MC NO. 2339 OF 2026 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CC NO.348 OF 2019 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I,MANJERI PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1:

SHYAMLAL M AGED 35 YEARS S/O. JAYADEVAN, MANJURALIYIL HOUSE, KOVILAKAMKUNDU NORTH, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676121 BY ADV SRI.K.RAKESH RESPONDENT/STATE:

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI, PIN – 682031 SR.PP. SRI.C.S.HRITHWIK THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.03.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

O R D E R Dated this the 13^th day of March, 2026 The petitioner is the 1^st accused in C.C.

No.348/2019 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Manjeri (Trial Court), which has originated from Crime No.198/2019 registered by the Manjeri Police Station alleging the commission of the offences punishable under Section 341, 323, 324 and

506(i) r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The petitioner has stated in the Criminal Miscellaneous Case that, by Annexure A order dated 10.11.2025, the petitioner was permitted to go abroad to pursue his employment and his appearance in the said case was permanently exempted, subject to conditions. The petitioner has scrupulously complied with the conditions in Annexure A order. Surprisingly, by Annexure B proceedings, the petitioner has been directed to be present before the Trial Court on

09.01.2026, on the finding that he has obtained a passport without the permission of the court, and that he was granted permission to go abroad subject to condition that he should appear before said court as and when directed. Annexure B proceedings dated 17.12.2025 and 09.01.2026 are onerous and unreasonable. It is only on the bona fide belief that the petitioner had been granted permanent exemption to go abroad, that he left the country after obtaining a passport. Therefore, the above proceedings may be set aside and the petitioner may be permitted to appear through his counsel. Hence, the Crl.M.C.

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

4. The Trial Court, after being convinced of the genuine reasons mentioned in the application, by Annexure A order, dispensed with the personal attendance of the petitioner in court, subject to conditions, including filing a special vakalath, producing copy of the passport and details of his employer.

5. Annexure A order was passed only on

10.11.2025. The proceedings dated 17.12.2025 substantiate that the Trial Court has directed the petitioner to appear on 09.01.2026 on the finding that the petitioner had obtained the passport without the permission of this Court. This, according to me, is unjustifiable and irrational, because the Trial Court itself has granted permission to the petitioner to go abroad for the purpose of pursuing his employment. It is on the basis of Annexure A order, presumably, that the petitioner obtained a passport and went abroad on the legitimate expectation of pursuing his employment. Moreover, in the said order, the Trial Court has directed to produce a copy of the passport and details of the employer. This by itself establishes that the Trial Court has permitted the petitioner to obtain a passport and secure an employment abroad.

6. In Abhil C.R. v. State of Kerala [2025 KHC OnLine 1650] , Satheesan v. State of Kerala [2025 KHC 2154] and Rameshan v. State of Kerala [2025 (6) KHC 545] , this Court has succinctly held that permanent exemption can be granted to an accused in a proceedings, unless his presence is imperative. Nonetheless accused w