CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Ashitha. S vs State Of Kerala

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 22 May 2023 · Citation: (2023) 05 KL CK 0119

HON’BLE JUDGES
Dr Kauser Edappagath, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 439 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 120B, 407, 409, 420, 468, 470, 471, 477A · Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Section 13(1)(d), 13(2)
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 3517 Of 2023
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 354 words

Dr Kauser Edappagath, J

1.

The petitioner is the accused No.4 in C.C.No.2/2021 pending on the file of the Special Judge (SPE/CBI), Thiruvananthapuram (for short 'the court below'). The offences alleged against the petitioner are punishable under Sections 120B r/w 409, 420, 407, 468, 471, 470, 477 A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) r/w 13(i)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

2.

The petitioner is on bail. She sought permission from the court below to visit her husband and baby child at Dubai. The permission was granted initially for the period from 14/05/2022 to 14/10/2022. Thereafter, it was extended till 14/04/2023. Again the petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No. 12/2023 at the court below seeking further extension of one more year. The said application was strongly opposed by the CBI. After hearing both sides, the court below dismissed the said application as per Annexure A1 order. It is under challenge in this Crl.M.C.

3.

I have heard Sri. M.R.Sasi, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Sreelal N. Warrier, the learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI.

4.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that C.C.No. 2/2021 is not ripe for trial and the petitioner is prepared to come and appear before the court as and when directed. The counsel further submitted that her presence at Dubai is absolutely necessary for her minor child. On the other hand, the learned Prosecutor Sri. Sreelal N. Warrier strongly opposed the application. He submitted that multiple crimes of similar nature are pending against the petitioner and the presence of the petitioner is necessary in connection with the investigation in those crimes.

5.

The learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.M.R.Sasi, ensured that if one more month's time is granted, the petitioner is prepared to come down to the native place, appear before the court and co-operate with the proceedings.

In view of the said submission, this Crl.M.C. is disposed of extending the time for a further period of one month from today. The petitioner shall come back and report before the court below on 21/06/2023. It is made clear that there shall not be any further extension.