High CourtsSingle Bench

Sumeet Goyal vs State Of Kerala

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 17 February 2022 · Citation: (2022) 02 KL CK 0153

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sunil Thomas, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 366, 409, 420, 511 · Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Section 13(1)(d), 13(2)
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 1028 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

22 paragraphs · 465 words

Sunil Thomas, J

1.

The petitioner was arrayed as the first accused in VC.No.1/2019 of VACB, Ernakulam for offence punishable under Section 409, 420, 511 of 366

read with 34 & 120 B of Indian Penal Code and Section 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. He is the Managing Director of a

Company, M/s. RDS Project Ltd, which is arrayed as the 14th accused. Pending the investigation, petitioner was arrested on 30.08.2019 and

remanded. He was released on bail by order of this court dated 04.11.2019, subject to certain conditions. It is stated that in compliance with the above

condition, he has surrendered his passport.

2.

According to the petitioner, now he intends to go abroad for a vacation tour with family for 15 days. Hence, he needs the passport to be released to

him, at least for a period of two months.

3.

A statement was filed by the VACB. Opposing the application, the learned Special Government Pleader raised strong objections to the relief sought

and apprehended that if the petitioner is permitted to leave the country, he may not be available during the trial. It was submitted by the learned

counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has substantial investment in his business in India and his Company has invested crores of rupees in

construction business. He settled in India with family and he proposed to leave the country only on vacation tour. He asserted that he will return the

passport immediately after the vacation tour is over and to surrender the passport to the court below.

4.

It seems that investigation is progressing, but it still not concluded though the FIR was registered in the year 2019. Having evaluated the entire facts,

I am inclined to permit the petitioner to leave the country for a period not exceeding two months from the date of release of the passport from the

court below. There will be a direction to the court below to release the passport subject to the condition that the petitioner shall file an affidavit before

the court below, furnishing the details of his travel, the date when he proposes to leave the country, the countries which he propose to visit and the

date of his return. He shall also undertake that he will return within the stipulated time and shall thereafter surrender the passport at the earliest. He

shall also furnish the contact details, while he is on travel. He shall also intimate these details to the investigation officer. On filing of the affidavit, the

passport will be released by the court below to the petitioner and he shall return the passport, after his journey, within a period of two months from the

date of release of the passport.

Crl.M.C is allowed as above.