The court held that a petitioner could seek renewal of a passport without breaching bail conditions if no permission to leave the jurisdiction was required.

ORDER

The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.

667/2025 registered by the Varandarappally Police Station, Thrissur District, alleging the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 118 (1) and 109(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita , 2023.

2. The petitioner has stated in the Criminal Miscellaneous Case that, by Annexure 1 order, the petitioner was enlarged on bail by this Court subject to conditions. As per condition No. (vii), the petitioner was directed not to leave the State of Kerala without the permission of the Trial Court. As the validity of the petitioner's passport had expired and since he is working in Qatar from 2004 onwards, he filed an application before the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Irinjalakuda (‘Trial Court’, for short), seeking permission to renew the validity of his passport. However, by Annexure 3 order, the Trial Court has dismissed the application on the ground that the petitioner had suppressed the fact regarding the conditions in Annexure 1 order passed by this Court. Annexure 3 order is ex facie erroneous and unreasonable. The petitioner has not suppressed any facts while filing the application seeking renewal of his passport. Condition No. (vii) in Annexure 1 order only restricts the petitioner from leaving the State of Kerala without permission of the Trial Court. In fact, the petitioner has not violated Condition No. (vii); all that he did was seek permission to renew his passport. Therefore, Annexure 3 order may be set aside. Hence, the Crl.M.C.

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

4. By Annexure 1 order, this Court had enlarged the petitioner on bail subject to conditions. As stated above, by condition No. (vii), he was directed not to leave the State of Kerala without permission of the Trial Court. As Annexure 3 order clearly reveals, although the petitioner sought the renewal of the passport, he had not sought the permission to leave the jurisdiction of the State of Kerala. Therefore, there was no necessity for him to have stated anything about Condition No. (vii) in the said application. Even otherwise, nobody has the case that the petitioner has left the jurisdictional court and violated the condition. Thus, I am of the view that the dismissal of the application is erroneous and liable to be set aside. Hence, I am satisfied 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 3 order and directing the Trial Court to reconsider the application filed by the petitioner, in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of the production of a copy of the order.