Partly allowed

Sandeep Kalathodiyil v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC10 Apr 2018Crl.MC/2015/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal miscellaneous petition in part. It directed the Passport Officer to issue a new one-year passport if the petitioner applies, allowing him to travel abroad only with trial court permission.

What did the court decide?

The Second Respondent is directed to issue a new passport for one year if the petitioner files a proper application, provided he obtains trial court permission before leaving the country.

Sandeep Kalathodiyil Vs State of Kerala — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL 2018 / 20TH CHAITHRA, 1940

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 2015 of 2018

¶6

----------------------CR.MP.33/2018 IN SC 445/2014 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD CRIME NO. 352/2013 OF OTTAPALAM POLICE STATION , PALAKKAD

¶7

PETITIONER/PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

SANDEEP KALATHODIYIL, S/O.PRABHAKARAN, 31 YEARS, KALATHODIYIL HOUSE, PALAPPURAM POST, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.R.SREEHARI

¶10

SRI.SACHIN VYAS

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶12

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

¶13

HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM,

¶14

THROUGH THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

¶15

OTTAPALAM POLICE STATION, OTTAPALAM- 679 101.

¶16

2. THE REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER, REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICE,

¶17

PANAMPALLY NAGAR, COCHIN- 682 036.

¶18

3. PORT REGISTRATION OFFICER, COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, NEDUMBASSERY 683 585.

¶19

R1 BY SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI T.R.RENJITH R2,R3 BY ADV. SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL

¶20

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10-04-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.V.

¶21

Crl.MC.No. 2015 of 2018 ()

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES

¶24

ANNEXURE A1:	PHOTOCOPY OTTAPALAM	OF FIR IN CRIME NO.352/2013 OF POLICE STATION.
ANNEXURE A2:	PHOTOCOPY OTTAPALAM	OF FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.352/2013 OF POLICE STATION.
ANNEXURE A3:	PHOTOCOPY PETITIONER	OF RELEVANT PAGES OF PASSPORT OF THE .
ANNEXURE A4:	PHOTOCOPY BY THE 2ND	OF THE NOTICE DATED 28/06/2017 ISSUED RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE A5:	PHOTOCOPY BY THE 3RD	OF THE RECEIPT DATED 08/02/2018 ISSUED RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE A6:	CERTIFIED CRL M.P NO COURT, OTT	COPY OF AFFIDAVIT FILED IN SUPPORT OF .33/2018 IN SC 445/14 OF THE ADDL.SESSIONS APALAM.
ANNEXURE A7:	CERTIFIED OF THE ADD	COPY OF CRL M.P NO.33/2018 IN SC 445/2014 L.SESSIONS COURT, OTTAPALAM.
ANNEXURE A8:	CERTIFIED NO.33/2018 OTTAPALAM	COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED IN CRL M.P IN SC 445/2014 OF ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, DATED 02/03/2018.

¶25

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL

¶26

/TRUE COPY/

¶27

K.V. P.S.TO JUDGE 11.04.2018

¶28

K.ABRAHAM MATHEW J.

¶29

Crl.M.C.No.2015 of 2018

¶30

Dated this the 10^th day of April, 2018

¶31

ORDER

¶32

Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶33

The petitioner is an accused in S.C.No.445 of 2014 on the file of

¶34

Sessions Judge, Ottappalam. He is alleged to have committed the offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 307, 323 and 324 read with Section 149 IPC. His passport was renewed for ten years from 16.8.2016. But later it was impounded for the reason that he had suppressed the pendency of this sessions case in his application . This is challenged.

¶35

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and the Central Government Counsel.

¶36

I have no doubt that the second respondent rightly impounded the passport of the petitioner. The prayer of the petitioner now is to direct the second respondent to issue a fresh passport, who has been working abroad. It is only proper that he is issued a passport for one year. But he shall obtain the permission of the trial court for leaving the country.

¶37

In the result, this Crl.M.C is allowed in part. The second respondent is directed to issue a new passport to the petitioner for one year if he files an application for the said purpose and the application is otherwise in order. The petitioner shall not leave the country except with the permission of the trial court.

¶38

Sd/- K.ABRAHAM MATHEW JUDGE cms /True copy/ P.S.to Judge

Sandeep Kalathodiyil v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep Kalathodiyil v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rakhi. T Vs the State of Kerala

N.P.Sulekha Vs State of Kerala

Mohamad Khais Vs State of Kerala

Mohanan Vs State of Kerala

Sandeep Vs Vipin P.G.

G. Krishnakumar Vs State of Kerala