Vishnu vs State Of Kerala

Bechu Kurian Thomas, J

Petitioners are the accused in Crime No.589/2023 of Palode Police Station, alleging offences punishable under Sections 3, 25(IB)(a) of the Arms Act, 1959, apart from 8(1) and (2) of the Abkari Act, 1967.

While granting bail to the petitioners in Crl.M.C.982/2023, the learned Sessions Judge imposed certain conditions. Thereafter, petitioners approached this Court in Crl.M.C.No.4965/2023 seeking modification of the conditions imposed and by order dated 03.07.2023, this Court modified the conditions and directed that petitioners obtain permission from the Jurisdictional Court, if they intent to go abroad.

However, when petitioners approached the learned Magistrate seeking permission to travel abroad that petition was dismissed, pointing out that the Magistrate court lacked jurisdiction. Subsequently, petitioners once again approached this Court through Crl.M.C.No.6057/2023 and by order dated 04.08.2023, it was held that the Magistrate was not justified in dismissing the application, as the final report had not yet been laid.

Pursuant to the above judgment, petitioners filed Crl.M.P.No.4243/23 seeking permission to travel abroad. However, by the impugned order dated 08.08.2023, permission was granted to go abroad only for a period of six months.

Sri.A.Rajasimhan, the learned counsel for the petitioners, contended that the order granting permission to travel abroad only for six months causes serious prejudice to the petitioner as they had already been employed abroad even at the time of registration of the crime. It was submitted that permission ought to be granted for a minimum period of five years to reside abroad.

Sri.Noushad K.A., the learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submitted that pursuant to the impugned order, petitioners have already traveled abroad and that no prejudice would be caused to them as they can appear and seek extension of the period stipulated, especially since the final report is about to be filed before the Court.

A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the court has already granted permission to the petitioners to go abroad, as they have been employed in Qatar for the last 12 years. Conditions have been imposed that petitioners should appear before the court as and when required. Since the said conditions are sufficient for the time being to ensure that the petitioners will appear before the court, I am of the view that, taking into reckoning employment of the petitioners in Qatar, the permission for six months is too meagre and can cause prejudice. Considering the entire circumstances, permission for two years would be a reasonable period.

In the above circumstances, a period of six months granted to the petitioners to go abroad shall stand modified to two years from 08.08.2023.

It is  made clear that all other conditions  imposed by the learned Magistrate shall continue. Any further extension of time can be sought for, from the jurisdictional court in accordance with law.

The Crl.M.C.is disposed of.