[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Jinto Joy vs State Of Kerala on 30 January, 2026
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
Crl. M.C No.9179 of 2025
2026:KER:8700
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
FRIDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 10TH MAGHA, 1947
CRL.MC NO. 9179 OF 2025
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 26.08.2025 IN CMP 3248/2025 IN CC
NO.543 OF 2025 OF ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONER/S:
JINTO JOY,
AGED 41 YEARS
S/O. JOY, KARIPPAYI HOUSE, MOTHIRAKKANNI DESOM,
PARIYARAM VILLAGE, CHALAKUDY TALUK, THRISSUR
DISTRICT, PIN - 680721
BY ADVS.
SRI.N.L.BITTO
SMT.MITHUL T ANTO
RESPONDENT/S:
STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CITY CYBER POLICE STATION,
THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA AT ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
OTHER PRESENT:
SR PP SRI C S HRITHWIK
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 30.01.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
Crl. M.C No.9179 of 2025
2
2026:KER:8700
C.S.DIAS, J.
----------------------------------------
Crl. M.C No.9179 of 2025
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 30th day of January, 2026
ORDER
The petitioner is the accused in C.C No.
543/2025 on the file of the Court of the Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram, ('Trial Court'
for brevity) which originated from Crime No.02/2018
registered by the Thiruvananthapuram City Cyber Police
Station, alleging the commission of the offences
punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468, and 471 r/w
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 43 r/w
Section 66 and 66(c) of the Information Technology Act.
2. The petitioner has stated in the Criminal
Miscellaneous Case that he is totally innocent of the
2026:KER:8700
allegations levelled against him. There is no material to
substantiate his culpability in the crime. He was arrested
on 05.08.2018 at Indira Gandhi International Airport,
New Delhi. He was enlarged on bail by Annexure 2
order. He has been scrupulously complying with the
conditions in the said order. The investigation in the case
is complete, and the final report has been filed. However,
the Investigating Officer has illegally retained the
petitioner's passport and mobile phone without the
orders of the Court. The petitioner's right to travel
abroad has been curtailed, which is an infringement of
his fundamental right guaranteed under Articles 19 and
21 of the Constitution of India. In the above
circumstances, the petitioner filed an application before
the Trial Court for the release of his passport. However,
by Annexure 5 order, the Trial Court has dismissed the
application on the ground that the petitioner is a habitual
offender and is involved in numerous cases across the
country. Annexure A5 order is ex facie illegal and
2026:KER:8700
erroneous. The Trial Court has failed to comprehend that
there is no restriction imposed by any Court restricting
the petitioner's right to travel abroad. Therefore, the
Annexure A5 order may be set aside.
3. The investigation officer has filed a report,
inter alia, stating that the petitioner is involved in
twenty-four crimes registered by the various police
stations in the state as well as by Mangaluru City.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The petitioner was enlarged on bail in the
present crime by Annexure 2 order, subject to the
condition that he has to execute a bond for Rs. 50,000
with two solvent sureties for a like sum, appear before
the investigation officer on all Saturdays till the filing of
the final report and cooperate with the investigation.
6. Undisputedly, there is no order passed by
any Court ordering the petitioner's passport to be
2026:KER:8700
surrendered. It is apparent that the investigation officer
has seized the petitioner's passport. Under what
provision he has seized the passport, without the order
of the Court, is not discernible. Whether an accused's
passport can be seized by an investigation officer without
orders of the Court is a pertinent question, which the
Trial Court has not considered. Hence, I am of the
definite view that the Trial Court is to be directed to
reconsider the application filed by the petitioner seeking
for the return of his passport. I am satisfied that this is a
fit case to exercise the inherent powers of this Court
under Section 528 of the BNSS.
In the aforesaid circumstances, I set aside the
Annexure 5 order and direct the learned magistrate to
re-consider C.M.P. No. 3248/2025, in accordance with
law, after affording the petitioner and the Investigating
Officer an opportunity of being heard, untrammelled by
any observation made in this order. It is also made clear
that this Court has not expressed anything on the right
2026:KER:8700
of the petitioner to travel abroad.
Sd/-
Srs/30.01.2026 C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
2026:KER:8700
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC NO. 9179 OF 2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure-1 A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.2 OF
2018 OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CITY CYBER
POLICE STATION DATED 24/1/2018
Annexure-2 A TRUE COPY OF THE BAIL ORDER IN CMP.1336
OF 2018 OF THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 2/5/2018
Annexure-3 A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME
NO. 2 OF 2018 OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CITY
CYBER POLICE STATION SUBMITTED ON
3/3/2021
Annexure-4 A TRUE COPY OF THE CMP.3248 OF 2015 IN
CC.543 OF 2021 APPLICATION TO RELEASE HIS
PASSPORT AND MOBILE PHONE FILED BEFORE
ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 14/8/2025
Annexure-5 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CMP.3248 OF
2015 IN CC.543 OF 2021 BEFORE ADDITIONAL
CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 26/8/2025
