Salahudheen vs State Of Kerala

K.Haripal, J

Petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No. 409 of 2009 of Kannur Town police station. He had been on bail in that case. Later, he absconded and went abroad. He was arrested for the case on 06.03.2021, issuing a production warrant while he was under detention in connection with some other cases. From 06.03.2021 onwards, he is in judicial custody for this crime. At that time he moved an application before the Sessions Court for bail, Crl.M.C. No. 1069 of 2021, which was allowed imposing certain conditions, among other things, that he shall surrender his passport. Contending that he had lost his passport, he moved the Sessions Court again with Crl.M.P. No. 1393 of 2021. By Annexure-C order, taking into account the objection raised by the prosecution and also the track record of the petitioner, the learned Sessions Judge, Thalassery dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner has moved this Court for deleting/modifying condition No. 2 in Annexure-B order.

I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, he had lost his passport while working abroad and thus he was deported from abroad, from 2018 onwards he is in India; at that time he was working in New Delhi as a driver and was arrested when he had returned to the native place. According to the learned counsel, since he does not have a passport, the said condition is impossible to comply, that there is no alternate condition that he should furnish an affidavit, that he shall not leave the country during the pendency of the proceedings.

The learned Senor Public Prosecutor submits that though he was granted bail on 16.11.2009 in the crime, later he went absconding and that he has a bad track record, there are four other cases of similar nature, pending against him; that means, he has five cases to his credit.

All the same, he is in custody from 06.03.2021 onwards. The learned Sessions Judge also found that bail should be granted to him. From Annexure-C order it is evident that the trial of the case is under way. He is on bail in other four cases also. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that till the termination of all the five cases he cannot apply for a fresh passport and that for the present he has no intention for the same. Taking into account all these facts, it is only appropriate that he shall be released on bail, modifying the second condition in Annexure-B order on his furnishing an undertaking that he does not possess a passport, that he has no intention to apply for the same till the termination of all the proceedings.

The Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed as above.