[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Vinu P. Raphel vs State Of Kerala on 6 January, 2026
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2026:KER:239
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
TUESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 16TH POUSHA, 1947
CRL.MC NO. 11680 OF 2025
CRIME NO.286/2014 OF Chalakkudy Police Station, Thrissur
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 30.10.2025 IN CC NO.1190 OF
2015 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, CHALAKUDY
PETITIONER/THIRD ACCUSED:
VINU P. RAPHEL
AGED 45 YEARS
S/O RAPPAI, PULLUKKARA HOUSE, K.K. ROAD,
CHALAKUDY P O, EAST CHALAKUDY VILLAGE,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680307
BY ADVS.
SRI.JITHIN BABU A
SHRI.ARUN SAMUEL
SMT.CLEMANCE THOTTAPPILLY
SHRI.ANOOD JALAL K.J.
SMT.DONA MATHEW
RESPONDENTS/STATE:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
2 REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER
PASSPORT SEVA KENDRA, SHIHAB THANGAL ROAD,
NEAR IDBI CORPORATE BRANCH, PANAMPILLY NAGAR,
KOCHI, ERNAKULAM, KERALA, PIN - 682036
BY ADV O.M.SHALINA, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA
OTHER PRESENT:
SR.PP.SRI.C.S.HRITHWIK
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.01.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl. M.C. No. 11680 of 2025 -:2:
2026:KER:239
Dated this the 6th day of January, 2026
ORDER
The petitioner is the third accused in C.C. No.
1190/2015 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First
Class Magistrate, Chalakkudy ('Trial Court', for short),
which has arisen out of Crime No. 286/2014 registered
by the Chalakkudy Police Station, Thrissur district,
alleging the commission of the offences punishable under
Sections 406, 468 and 420 read with Section 34 of the
Indian Penal Code.
2. The petitioner states that he is the holder of
an Indian Passport No. V7186163. The validity of the
petitioner's passport has expired. Even though the
petitioner had approached the Regional Passport Officer,
Thrissur, to renew his passport, he was instructed to
obtain prior permission from the jurisdictional court.
Accordingly, the petitioner has filed Annexure 2
application before the Trial Court for permission to
Crl. M.C. No. 11680 of 2025 -:3:
2026:KER:239
renew the passport. By the impugned Annexure 3 order,
the Trial Court has allowed the application, but has
restricted the validity of the passport to eight months.
The petitioner requires a passport with a minimum
validity of ten years to obtain the visa. The restriction
regarding the validity of the passport in Annexure 3
order is onerous and unjustifiable. Hence, the Crl.M.C.
3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the
Petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned
Deputy Solicitor General of India for the second
respondent. .
4. The case against the petitioner is of the year
2015. The petitioner has been scrupulously complying
with the bail conditions. The petitioner was earlier
granted permission by the Trial Court to renew his
passport without any time restriction. However, in the
impugned order, the Trial Court has granted permission
to renew the passport only for a period of eight months,
Crl. M.C. No. 11680 of 2025 -:4:
2026:KER:239
though there was no objection raised by the prosecution.
5. In Rameshan v. State of Kerala (2025 (6)
KHC 545) this Court, after considering its earlier
decisions in Alex. C. Joseph Vs. State of Kerala (2025
(1) KHC 174), Abhil C.R. Vs. State of Kerala (2025
KHC 1650) and Satheesan v. State of Kerala (2025
KHC Online 2154) has held that subsequent to the
promulgation of the Rules, there is no necessity to insist
for the personal appearance of an accused for framing of
the charge, trial, recording of plea or letting in defence
evidence. Instead, the accused can be permitted to avail
the electronic video linkage as per Rules.
6. Indisputably, the petitioner's personal
presence is not required at this stage. Therefore, the
impugned order granting permission to renew the
passport for only eight months is unnecessary. If at all
the petitioner's personal presence is required, he could
very well avail the electronic video linkage as per the
Crl. M.C. No. 11680 of 2025 -:5:
2026:KER:239
Electronic Video Linkage Rules for Courts (Kerala) 2021
('Rules', for short) and also seek for permanent
exemption. Therefore, I am of the definite view that the
petitioner can be granted the permission to renew the
passport for a minimum period of three years subject to
the condition that he files applications before the Trial
Court seeking his permanent exemption and to permit
him to participate in the proceedings by availing the
electronic video linkage, if it is felt necessary.
In aforesaid circumstances, I allow the Crl.M.C in
the following manner:
(i) Annexure 3 order is set aside, subject to the
condition that the petitioner files applications through
his counsel, within two weeks from today, seeking for his
permanent exemption and for permission to avail the
electronic video linkage as per the Rules.
(ii) If such applications are filed, the Trial Court
shall consider the applications, in accordance with law
Crl. M.C. No. 11680 of 2025 -:6:
2026:KER:239
and pass orders thereon.
(iii) The second respondent is directed to renew
the petitioner's passport with the validity of three years.
Sd/-
mtk C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
Crl. M.C. No. 11680 of 2025 -:7:
2026:KER:239
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC NO. 11680 OF 2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure 1 A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR DATED 31/10/2014
IN CRIME NO. 286/2014 OF CHALAKUDY POLICE
STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
Annexure 2 A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED
23.08.2025 BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST-
CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, CHALAKUDY AS CMP
NO. 8359/2025 IN CC NO. 1190/2015.
Annexure 3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30/10/2025
BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST-CLASS
MAGISTRATE COURT CHALAKUDY.
Annexure 4 A TRUE COPY OF THE PRIOR PASSPORT OF THE
PETITIONER.
