Kerala High Court
Haris Ahmed Bolar vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 5 September, 2024
2024:KER:68000
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN
THURSDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024 / 14TH BHADRA, 1946
CRL.MC NO. 5707 OF 2024
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CC NO.1 OF 2023 OF
SPE/CBI - III, ERNAKULAM
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.20:
HARIS AHMED BOLAR
AGED 49 YEARS
S/O. AHMED, MUKKACHERRY HOUSE, KAICO ROAD, ULLAL,
MANGALORE KARNATAKA, PIN - 574117
BY ADVS.
R.ANAS MUHAMMED SHAMNAD
C.C.ANOOP
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CBI/ACB,
COCHIN, ERNAKULAM THROUGH THE SPECIAL PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR, CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION,
PIN - 682017
BY
ADV.SREELAN N.WARRIER-SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, C.B.I.
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
05.09.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C.No. 5707 of 2024
..2..
2024:2024:KER:68000
O R D E R
Dated this the 5th day of September, 2024
This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is preferred by
accused no.20 in C.C.No.1/2023 pending before the
Additional Special Sessions Judge (SPE/C.B.I.)-
III, Ernakulam. The offences alleged are under
Section 120B, read with Section 409 of the Penal
Code and Sections 7, 8 and 12 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act.
2. Petitioner is aggrieved by Annexure-A1 order
of the above Special Court in Crl.M.P.
No.398/2024, as per which, the petitioner was only
permitted to travel abroad for a period of six
months, with a condition that the said permission
is granted only for one onward and one return
journey.
..3..
2024:2024:KER:68000
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner
and the learned Special Public Prosecutor(C.B.I.).
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would
submit that, the restriction for a single onward
and single return journey incorporated in
Annexure-A1 order affects his right to travel,
emanating from Article 19 and 21 of the
Constitution. Learned counsel would elaborate
practical situations, where the petitioner may
have to travel, on more occasions than one, say in
connection with the disease or death of his close
relatives. Learned counsel would submit that, it
is not practicable to seek permission of the
Special Court on every occasion, especially when
such travel is necessitated emergently. On such
premise, petitioner seeks Annexure-A1 order to be
set aside, insofar as it imposes restrictive
conditions for travel as referred above.
..4..
2024:2024:KER:68000
5. This submission was seriously opposed by the
learned Special Public Prosecutor. It was pointed
out that, the case has been registered on the
allegation that accused persons, including the
petitioner, have bribed the customs officials to
enable smuggling during the course of their
travel. Having regard to the very nature of the
allegations leveled, frequent travel of the
accused persons, including the petitioner, has to
be curbed, as otherwise, it may provide room for
repetition of similar crimes. Learned Special
Public Prosecutor would point out that, the
grievance now espoused by the petitioner is a
grievance, which is common to every Non Resident
Indian (N.R.I.), who takes up employment in a Gulf
country, where restrictions on travel is even
imposed by the employer. Learned Special Public
Prosecutor would invite the attention of this
Court to ground no.(g) of the Crl.M.C., urging the
..5..
2024:2024:KER:68000
necessity to travel frequently since the
petitioner is a salesman, to point out that the
need now espoused on the basis of emergent
situations is not what is pleaded.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner and the learned Special Public
Prosecutor, this Court finds no reason to
interfere with Annexure-A1 order. This Court takes
stock of the nature of the allegations leveled
against the accused persons, including the
petitioner, and viewed from that angle, frequent
travel of the accused persons to India cannot be
permitted, as rightly canvassed by the learned
Special Public Prosecutor. Permissions in tune
with the rights of the petitioner as flowing from
Article 19 and 21 of the Constitution have already
been afforded in the impugned order. The
petitioner has been permitted to travel abroad to
take up his employment therein, but such right of
..6..
2024:2024:KER:68000
travel is restricted by one onward and return
journey. The obvious purpose for such restriction/
stipulation is to prevent frequent travel,
thereby, plugging the possibility of a similar
criminal activity, as has been alleged to have
been committed in the instant crime. No exception,
whatsoever, can be taken to the said view of the
learned Special Judge. In the circumstances, this
Criminal Miscellaneous Case would stand dismissed.
7. However, taking into account the request made
by the learned counsel for the petitioner as
regards the requirement for travel, which may
arise because of emergent situation, it is
clarified that the petitioner, upon reaching India
on account of an emergent situation, if any, will
be at liberty to move the Special Court seeking
further permission for travel. If the Special
Court is satisfied that the petitioner was
constrained to travel in connection with an
..7..
2024:2024:KER:68000
emergent situation, thereby exhausting his option
for return journey, it will be open for the
Special Court to grant further permission for
travel. Needless to say that, the objections, if
any, of the respondent/C.B.I., will also be
considered before issuing such orders granting
permission for travel. This order will not
preclude the petitioner from moving any fresh
application seeking permission to travel, in case
he had already exhausted the permission for one
return journey granted by Annexure-A1 order. Such
application, if any, will be considered by the
learned Special Judge on merits, in accordance
with law.
Sd/-
C. JAYACHANDRAN
JUDGE
TR
..8..
2024:2024:KER:68000
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure 1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13.06.2024
IN CRL. M.P 398/ 2024 IN C.C 1/2023 BY
HON'BLE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SPECIAL
SESSIONS JUDGE (SPE/CBI)-III, ERNAKULAM
