IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY 2010 / 1ST MAGHA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 4213 of 2009() ------------------------- CRMP.3643/2009 of SESSIONS COURT, KOZHIKOE .................... (CRIME NOS.374/2009 & 385/2009 OF NADAPURAM POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE) PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED: ----------------------------------------- SHAMIM, S/O.MAYAN KUTTY, AGED 20 YEARS, ELANGOTTU HOUSE, PURAMERI AMSOM, VADAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DT. BY ADV. MR.M.MUHAMMED SHAFI RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPD. BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KOZHIKODE POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. P.A. SALIM THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ---------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.4213 of 2009 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of January, 2010 ORDER Petitioner, the accused in Crime No.374/2009 and 385/2009 of Nadapuram Police Station, was granted bail on conditions. One of the condition was that he shall surrender the passport before the Magistrate. Petitioner surrendered the passport. He later filed CMP 3643/2009 to modify the said condition originally passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Crl.M.C.1378/2009 and 1379/2009, so that he could go abroad. The case of the petitioner is that he got employment in Qatar and also obtained visa, but without getting his passport released he cannot join the employment and therefore passport is to be released. By Annexure-A2 order, learned Sessions Judge dismissed the petition. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Annexure-A2 order and to release the passport surrendered as directed by the learned Sessions Judge in Crl.M.C.1378/2009 and 1379/2009. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. Petitioner is accused No.35 in crime No. 374/2009 of 2 Nadapuram Police Station registered for the offences under Sections 143, 145, 147, 148, 341 and 353 read with Section 149 IPC and Section 3(1) of PDPP Act. It is submitted that there are 250 accused in that case. He is also the second accused in Crime No.385/2009 of the same police station, registered for the offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 353 and 188 read with Section 149 IPC and Sections 3 and 5 of Explosive Substances Act. Though learned Public Prosecutor submitted that a final report can be filed within one month in crime No.374/2009, it is submitted that a final report in the other case cannot be filed within a period of six months. 4. The only question is whether petitioner is to be denied an opportunity to earn his livelihood by going abroad and join the employment he obtained. The learned Sessions Judge rejected the prayer on the ground that if petitioner is to be released, his presence cannot be assured for the purpose of trial and in such circumstances, he cannot be allowed to go abroad. The learned counsel submitted that petitioner is prepared to abide by any condition and he will make available himself for trial and therefore the passport is to be released. 3 5. Learned Public Prosecutor has no case that for the purpose of investigation, presence of the petitioner is necessary. In such circumstances, what is to be assured is only presence of the petitioner for the purpose of trial. If that could be assured, I do not find that the passport is to be retained further in the court and thereby nullify the opportunity obtained by the petitioner to earn his livelihood by working abroad. On the facts of this case, I find that the petitioner can be permitted to go abroad by releasing the passport on conditions. 6. Petition is allowed. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nadapuram is directed to release the passport of the petitioner surrendered as ordered by the Sessions Judge in Crl.M.C.1378/2009 and 1379/2009, on the following conditions. Petitioner shall execute a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like sum. One of the surety must be one of the close relatives to the petitioners like parents or siblings. If a close relative is not capable of executing a bond for Rs.2,00,000/-, in addition to the sureties the close relative should be an additional surety. Petitioner and the sureties shall undertake before the Magistrate that petitioner will appear 4 before the court, as and when required, for the purpose of trial. Petitioner shall furnish his address at the place of his employment, as well as the address of his counsel, to whom notice is to be served to get the presence of the petitioner for the purpose of trial. Petitioner shall report before the investigating officer as and when he reaches India. M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge cms