High CourtsSingle Bench

Sanjai Lal vs State Of Kerala

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 2 February 2022 · Citation: (2022) 02 KL CK 0019

HON’BLE JUDGES
Dr Kauser Edappagath, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Indian Penal Code,1860 — Section 376, 420 · Information Technology(Amendment) Act, 2008 — Section 67(a)
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 688 Of 2022
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

29 paragraphs · 560 words

Dr. Kauser Edappagath, J

1.

The order passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Pathanamthitta in C.M.P.No.42/2022 in C.P.No.71/2022 is under challenge in this

Crl.M.C.

2.

I have heard Dr. K.P. Satheesan, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri. M.P. Prasanth, the learned Public Prosecutor.

3.

The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.953/2018 of Aranmula Police Station. The offences alleged against him are under Sections 420 and 376

of IPC and Section 67(a) of the Information Technology(Amendment) Act, 2008.

4.

The petitioner was granted bail by this Court as per Annexure I order with 8 conditions. Condition No.4 is that “The petitioner shall not leave

India without the permission of the Court.†Condition No. 8 is that “The petitioner shall surrender his passport before the Investigating Officer at

the time of surrender before the Investigating Officerâ€​. It is submitted that accordingly, the passport has already been surrendered.

5.

The petitioner filed CMP.No.42/2022 at the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court I, Pathanamthitta as per the direction of this Court in Annexure IV

order to release the passport and also seeking direction to go abroad for employment in Dubai. According to the petitioner, he secured a job at

Exclusive Family (L.L.C) in Dubai and he has to urgently leave to Dubai to join duty. Annexure II letter of appointment shows the genuineness of the

petitioner's plea. The court below dismissed the petition holding that since the case is exclusively to be trialed by the Sessions Court, the petition cannot

be allowed.

6.

The case is now in the committal stage. It may take so many years for final disposal of the case. The petitioner is aged 31 years. According to the

petitioner, he is the bread winner of the family. For the reason that a criminal case is pending against him, he cannot be detained here till disposal of

the said case. The court where the case is committed has power to grant permission to the petitioner to leave the country. In these circumstances, I

am of the view that this Crl.M.C can be disposed of.

7.

The petitioner shall appear before the committal court, i.e., Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Pathanamthitta within a week from today. The

committal court shall complete the committal proceedings within two weeks thereafter and shall commit the case to the sessions Court,

Pathanamthitta.

8.

The learned Sessions Judge shall assign sessions number without any delay. After the sessions number is assigned, the petitioner is free to appear

before the court concerned even without summons and he can offer bail. The petitioner shall also file an application seeking exemption. The court

shall dispose of the said application without delay in accordance with law. The fact that the petitioner has already secured employment in Dubai and

also the fact that there is no possibility of disposal of the case in the near future shall be taken into consideration by the court while disposing of the

application.

In the event, the court is allowing the application, the court can impose conditions to secure the presence of the petitioner as and when required. In the

event, the court below is granting permission to the petitioner to leave to Dubai, needless to say, the passport shall be released to the petitioner.

Accordingly, Annexure V order shall stand set aside. The Crl.M.C. is disposed of as above.