IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 29TH AUGUST 2008 / 7TH BHADRA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 3125 of 2008() ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN CRMP NO.407/2008 IN CC.1/2008 of SPL.COURT SPE/CBI-II & IV ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER: ------------ ALEX KOSHY S/O.LATE DANIEL KOSHY, S.GOMES HOUSE TANK PAKHDI,SAHAR VILLAGE ,MUMBAI 400099 BY ADV. SMT.K.V.RESHMI RESPONDENTS: ------------- CBI/SPE/KERALA,REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR BY ADV. SRI.M.V.S.NAMBOOTHIRY,SC, C.B.I. FOR R1 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJAD ALI THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No.3125 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of August, 2008 ORDER Petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution for offences punishable, inter alia, under Sections 120 B and 471 I.P.C as also Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The petitioner is not a public servant. He is alleged to have entered into a criminal conspiracy with the co-accused, who include public servants, for the commission of the crime. The petitioner was arrested and enlarged on bail. Investigation is complete. Final report has already been filed and C.C.No.1 of 2008 has been registered against the petitioner and the other accused. 2. In the course of investigation, passport of the petitioner was seized by the C.B.I. It is submitted that the said passport is not seized as a document necessary for the proof of the offence alleged in the case. It is also not disputed that the passport is not surrendered as a condition for grant of bail. When the petitioner was arrested, his passport was seized also. That is all. The petitioner had earlier requested the court to release the passport to him and the learned Special Judge had Crl.M.C. No.3125 of 2008 2 once earlier directed release of the passport to the petitioner on condition that he deposits an amount of Rs.1 lakh as security. The passport was returned to the court and the amount of Rs.1 lakh was taken back by the petitioner. According to the petitioner, he now needs his passport to travel abroad in connection with his employment. He made an application before the learned Special Judge and the learned Special Judge, by the impugned order, directed release of the passport again on the identical condition that the petitioner must deposit an amount of Rs.1 lakh and the same must be retained in custody of the court as cash security till the passport is surrendered back. 3. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by this direction. He submits that the passport is not a document to be introduced in evidence of the case. It was not surrendered before court as a condition for grant of bail. In these circumstances, insistence on imposition of such a condition is unnecessary, unreasonable and harsh. The petitioner is not now able to raise the amount of Rs.1 lakh to be kept with the court as security. In these circumstances, the said onerous condition may be deleted, it is prayed. Crl.M.C. No.3125 of 2008 3 4. The learned Standing Counsel for the C.B.I opposes the prayer of the petitioner. The learned Standing Counsel submits that there is very real chance of the petitioner fleeing from justice. At the time of grant of bail, no condition relating to the surrender of the passport was necessary as the passport had already been seized and was available before court. The learned Standing Counsel further submits that the petitioner is a person who was employed by an employer at Bombay and that there is nothing to show that he has to go abroad now. The learned Standing Counsel submits that the present submission, that the passport is required for him to travel abroad in connection with his employment under his employer at Bombay, cannot be accepted. At any rate, if this Court were pleased to modify the conditions imposed, appropriate safeguards may be insisted, submits the learned Standing Counsel. 5. Having considered all the relevant circumstances, I am satisfied that there is merit in the opposition by the learned Public Prosecutor. I am satisfied that the release of the passport can be upheld. But the condition imposed can be modified to make it reasonable and not unduly harsh. 6. In the result: a) This Crl.M.C is allowed in part; Crl.M.C. No.3125 of 2008 4 b) The condition imposed under the impugned order is modified. It is directed that the petitioner can take back his passport from the learned Special Judge on condition that the petitioner intimates to the Special Judge the period during which he requires the passport for his journey to abroad. If the learned Special Judge is satisfied about the request, the passport shall be released to the petitioner on condition that i) The petitioner shall execute a bond for Rs.2 lakhs with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge; ii) In such bond, the petitioner shall undertake to produce the passport back before the learned Special Judge on a specified date after he performs his journey as required by him in connection with his employment; c) It is directed that, at any rate, the petitioner shall surrender the passport back before the learned Special Judge within a period of 3 months from the date on which such passport is released to the petitioner. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-