[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Ashlin Antony vs State Of Kerala on 27 February, 2026
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2026:KER:17805
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
FRIDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 8TH PHALGUNA, 1947
CRL.MC NO. 1111 OF 2026
CRIME NO.675/2025 OF Mannuthy Police Station, Thrissur
ORDER DATED 10.11.2025 IN CMP NO.4202 OF 2025 OF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -III,THRISSUR
PETITIONER/PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.5:
ASHLIN ANTONY,
AGED 24 YEARS
PUTHURTHARAYIL HOUSE,NELLIKUNNU DESOM, OLLUKKARA
VILLAGE,THRISSUR DISTRICT -, PIN - 680005
BY ADVS.
SRI.E.VIJIN KARTHIK
SMT.POOJA P.
SMT.ANUJAMOL V. S.
RESPONDENTS/STATE/COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
2 SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE ,
MANNUTHY POLICE STATION, THRISSUR,REPRESENTED BY THE
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN
- 682031
SR.PP.SMT.SEETHA S
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
27.02.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:17805
Crl.M.C. No.1111 of 2026
2
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------------
Crl.M.C.No.1111 of 2026
------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 27th day of February, 2026
ORDER
The petitioner is the 5th accused in Crime No.675
of 2025 registered with the Mannuthy Police Station,
Thrissur alleging the commission of offences punishable
under Sections 126(2), 351, 296(b), 109(1), 121(1) and
121(2) r/w Section 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
('BNS' in short) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of
Damages to Public Property Act, 1984.
2. The petitioner has stated in the criminal
miscellaneous case that he is totally innocent of the
allegations levelled against him. He is only 24 years of age.
He has secured an employment in the United Arab
Emirates. He does not have a passport till date. Therefore,
2026:KER:17805
he proposes to file an application for issuance of passport.
However, in view of the pendency of the above case, his
application may not be considered without a No Objection
Certificate issued by the jurisdictional court. Accordingly,
the petitioner filed an application before the Court of Judicial
First Class Magistrate-III, Thrissur (Trial Court, in short) to
issue a No Objection Certificate. But, by Annexure A4
impugned order, the Trial Court had dismissed the application,
stating that there are certain cases registered against the
petitioner. In Thadevoose Sebastian v. Regional
Passport Officer and Another [2021 (5) KHC 625], this
Court has held that there is no legal embargo for an accused
to travel abroad, due to the pendency of a crime. This aspect
was not considered by the Trial Court. Hence, Annexure A4
order may be set aside.
3. The Investigating Officer has filed a report, inter
alia, stating that the petitioner is a habitual offender. He is
2026:KER:17805
an accused in 4 other crimes registered by the very same
Police Station, namely Crime Nos.104 of 2021, 653 of
2022, 11 of 2023 and 674 of 2025. It is taking into
consideration the antecedents of the petitioner that the
Trial Court has dismissed the petitioner's application for a
No Objection Certificate. Hence, the Crl.M.C may be
dismissed.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. Admittedly, Crime No.675 of 2025 registered at
the Mannuthy Police Station is the most recent crime. The
petitioner does not dispute the fact that he is an accused in
the above mentioned four crimes. It is without seeking
permission from the said court in respect to the above
crimes that the petitioner has submitted an application for
a No Objection Certificate in the present crime, to apply for
a passport. This, according to me, is untenable, because,
2026:KER:17805
the petitioner ought to have obtained permission from the
trial court in respect of all the above crimes, and only then
can he apply for the passport and then seek permission to
travel abroad. Therefore, I do not find any extraordinary
circumstances to exercise the inherent powers of this Court
or find any error or illegality in Annexure A4 order, that, as
the petitioner is a habitual offender, he cannot be granted
permission to travel abroad.
In the afore circumstances, I dismiss this
Crl.M.C by confirming Annexure A4 order. Nonetheless, it
is clarified that it would be up to the petitioner to seek
permission in all the cases that are registered against him
and then apply for a passport, in accordance with law.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS
JUDGE
SSK/27/02/dkr
2026:KER:17805
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC NO. 1111 OF 2026
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR DATED 28-06-
2025 IN CRIME NO> 675 /2025 OF THE
MANNUTHY POLICE STATION, THRISSUR
DISTRICT
Annexure A2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14-08-
Annexure A3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CRL.M.P.NO.
4202/2025 DATED 29-10-2025
Annexure A4 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE DISMISSAL
ORDER DATED 10.11.2025 PASSED BY THE
HON'BLE JUDICIAL FIRST-CLASS MAGISTRATE
COURT-III, THRISSUR
