IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 25TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 6TH PHALGUNA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 478 of 2010() ------------------------------------- (CRIME NO.200/2009 OF MAARAD POLICE STATION) PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED: ----------------------------------------- ISHAM C.P., S/O. ABDU, AGED 3C0 YEARS, CHERATHUVATTON MARATHODIYIL HOUSE, EDAYOOR AMSOM, ATHIPPATTA DESOM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT/STATE: -------------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MAARAD POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. S.U. NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.M.C.NO.478 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------ Dated 25th February 2010 O R D E R Petitioner is the first accused in C.C.1167/2009 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-V, Kozhikode taken cognizance for offences under Sections 324, 452, 294(b) and 506(ii) read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. At the crime stage, by Annexure-A1 order petitioner was released on bail on conditions. Third condition was to surrender his passport. Petitioner surrendered his passport. Later, he filed a petition to get the passport released. By Annexure-A2 order petition was dismissed. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Annexure-A2 order and to Crmc 478/10 2 get the passport released. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. By Annexure-A2 order, learned Sessions Judge refused to release the passport for the reason that there are more than one accused and if the petitioner leaves India, he will not be available for trial, which may cause difficulty, as the case is to be split up. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner pointed out that Annexure-A2 order itself shows that petitioner had obtained an employment visa and as petitioner is not having any other avocation he has to go abroad and he was compelled to return to India earlier when his relationship with the wife was cordial and the denial to release the passport Crmc 478/10 3 would amount to denial of opportunity to earn and in such circumstances, the order is to be quashed. Learned counsel submitted that petitioner would undertake to appear before the learned Magistrate, for the purpose of trial. 4. For the reason that a case is pending before the learned Magistrate, petitioner shall not be denied an opportunity to earn. As Public Prosecutor himself reported before the Sessions court on instructions, that petitioner has already obtained an employment visa. Hence on sufficient conditions petitioner could be permitted to go abroad and for that purpose the passport could be released. Learned Magistrate to release the passport to the petitioner on executing a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like sum on undertaking that petitioner will Crmc 478/10 4 appear before the Magistrate for the purpose of trial. At least, one of the sureties should be a close relative of the petitioner like parents, brother or sister. If they are not in a position to execute bond for Rs.1,00,000/-, in addition to the two solvent sureties, the close relative must also execute the bond. Petition is disposed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.