Favas,P vs The State Of Kerala
2022 Latest Caselaw 8743 Ker

Crl.M.C.No.4279/22                     1


               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                              PRESENT
         THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
   THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 16TH ASHADHA, 1944
                      CRL.MC NO. 4279 OF 2022
  CRIME NO.400/2018 OF Valappatanam Police Station, Kannur
  AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMP 2450/2022 OF DISTRICT
                 COURT & SESSIONS COURT,THALASSERY
  CRMC 679/2022 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II,
                              KANNUR
PETITIONER/PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED:

            FAVAS P.
            AGED 26 YEARS,
            S/O.MOIDEEN,
            RESIDING AT "AMINA MANZIL,
            KATTILE PALLI, KANNUR, PIN - 670 561.

            BY ADVS.M.K.SUMOD
            ABDUL RAOOF PALLIPATH
            K.R.AVINASH (KUNNATH)
            PRAJIT RATNAKARAN
            RAJ CAROLIN V.
            VIDYA M.K.


RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE:

     1      THE STATE OF KERALA,
            REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF
            KERALA,ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 031.

     2      THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
            VALAPATTANAM POLICE STATION,
            VALAPATTANAM, KANNUR, PIN - 670 006.

            BY SRI.SUDHEER GOPALAKRISHNAN, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

      THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
07.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 Crl.M.C.No.4279/22                  2


                           ORDER

The petitioner is the 1st accused in Crime No.400 of 2018

of Valapattanam Police Station, registered for the offences

punishable under Sections 341, 324 and 308 read with 34 of

IPC. Initially, crime was registered for the offences punishable

under Sections 341 and 324 read with 34 IPC. Later, the offence

under Section 308 was also incorporated when the final report

was submitted.

2. The police submitted a final report in this case

without arresting the petitioner, showing that the petitioner was

absconding. It is the case of the petitioner that he was working

abroad at the relevant time. Later, the Judicial Magistrate of

First Class took cognizance of the said offence and since the

petitioner was absconding, the same was included in the Long

Pending Register. Later, when the petitioner came to his native

place, he surrendered before the court and was remanded to

judicial custody. Subsequently, as per Annexure-A1 order dated

30.05.2022, he was granted bail. One of the conditions imposed

was that he should surrender his passport. In compliance with

the aforesaid direction, he surrendered his passport.

3. Later, the petitioner submitted Crl.M.P.No.2450 of

2022 in Crl.M.C No.679 of 2022 seeking the release of the

passport on the ground that unless the same is released to the

petitioner, and he is permitted to go abroad, he will be deprived

of his employment. However, the aforesaid application was

dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge as per Annexure-A7

order. This Crl.M.C. is filed by challenging the aforesaid order.

4. Heard Sri.M.K.Sumod, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Sri.Sudheer Gopalakrishnan, learned Public

Prosecutor for the State.

5. The contention put forward by the learned counsel for

the petitioner is that the petitioner is presently working abroad

and if he is not permitted to go abroad by releasing his passport,

he will lose his employment and to substantiate the same, he

places reliance upon Annexure-A5. Annexure-A5 is a document

by which intimation has been given to the petitioner for

terminating the employment if he is not reporting for duty.

Further, it is pointed out by the learned counsel for the

petitioner that now the proceedings against the petitioner are

pending as C.P.No.19 of 2022 and the trial of the said case is

likely to take some time. Therefore, the presence of the

petitioner is not necessary at the moment and it is only

appropriate that the passport be directed to be released so as to

pursue his avocation for livelihood. He also expressed his

willingness to abide by any condition this Court may impose.

6. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor

would oppose the aforesaid application. It is pointed out that

the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the prayer sought by the

petitioner by taking note of the fact that the petitioner was not

cooperating with the trial during the initial stage and the

condition of the surrender of passport was imposed while

granting the bail, in such circumstances. Therefore, no

circumstances are in existence warranting any interference in

the said case.

7. It is true that the petitioner surrendered before the

court only in the year 2022, even though the crime was

registered in 2018. The explanation offered by the learned

counsel for the petitioner is that as he was working abroad, he

was unaware of the aforesaid proceedings. Whatever that be,

the fact remains that the committal proceedings are of the year

2022 and the trial of the case is likely to take some time. The

documents produced by the petitioner indicate that he is

working abroad. Merely because of the reason that the

petitioner is implicated in an offence, the means of livelihood of

the petitioner need not be curtailed. If measures are taken to

ensure the presence of the petitioner as and when required

before the court, there is no harm in allowing the petitioner to

go abroad. In my view, even while adopting measures for

securing the presence of the accused before the court, it is also

to be ensured that his livelihood is not affected on account of the

ongoing procedure. A balance has to be maintained between

both the requirements above. Thus, by taking note of the

relevant aspects, I am inclined to show some indulgence in the

matter by permitting the petitioner to go abroad and to direct

the release of the passport with some conditions to ensure his

presence whenever necessary before the court.

8. In the result, this Crl.M.C. is disposed of by setting

aside the Annexure-A7 order. It is directed that the passport of

the petitioner shall be released to him subject to the following

conditions.

i) the petitioner shall execute a bond for Rs.2,00,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like sum, and one of such surety shall be his near relative.

ii) the petitioner shall undertake before the committal court that he shall appear before the court as and when required.

(iii) Before leaving the country, the petitioner shall produce the attested copies of travel documents and furnish the address of the place of residence abroad, contact number, WhatsApp number and e-mail address to the jurisdictional court.

Sd/-

ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.

JUDGE DG/11.7.22

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 4279/2022

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL MC 679/2022 DATED: 30/05/2022 OF THE COURT OF SESSION, THALASSERY

Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE INDIAN PASSPORT OF THE PETITIONER

Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE UAE RESIDENCY PERMIT ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF UAE

Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S AADHAR CARD WITH NUMBER 487139567347

Annexure A5 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER'S EMPLOYER TO THE PETITIONER

Annexure A6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL MP 2287/22 IN CP 19/22 DATED: 04/06/22 OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, KANNUR

Annexure A7 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL MP NO. 2450/2022 IN CRL MC NO. 679/2022 DATED 28.6.2022