Remanded

Rekha Najeesh @ Rekha, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC9 Nov 2021Crl.MC/3079/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the Assistant Sessions Judge to reconsider an order granting four-month travel permission to the petitioner, an accused woman seeking to work abroad, to extend the period given pending prosecution witness availability.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Assistant Sessions Judge to reconsider the criminal miscellaneous petition and extend the travel period for the petitioner.

Rekha Najeesh @ Rekha, Vs State of Kerala — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.R.ANITHA

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 9^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 18TH KARTHIKA, 1943

¶5

CRL.MC NO. 3079 OF 2021

¶6

(TO MODIFY ORDER IN CRL.M.P NO.14/2021 IN S.C. NO.29/2016 ON THE FILE OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, KARUNAGAPPALLY IN CRIME

¶7

NO.39/2015 OF CHAVARA THEKKUMBHAGOM POLICE STATION, KOLLAM

¶8

DISTRICT)

¶9

PETITIONER/S3RD ACCUSED

¶10

REKHA NAJEESH @ REKHA, AGED 36 YEARS

¶11

W/O. NAJEESH KUMAR, ADDEKKALATHU KIZHAKKATHIL, PUTHENSANKETHAM, KOIVILA P.O., KOLLAM TALUK-691590.

¶12

BY ADVS.

¶13

K.SIJU S.ABHILASH S.SEETHA ANJANA KANNATH

¶14

RESPONDENTS/STATE:

¶15

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.

¶16

2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER, CHAVARA THEKKUMBHAGOM POLICE STATION, KOLLAM-691584.

¶17

PP SANGEETHARAJ N.R

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

Cr.M.C.No.3079 of 2021

¶20

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Dated this the 9^th day of November, 2021

¶23

This Crl.M.C. has been filed against the order in Crl.M.P. No.14/2021 in S.C. No.29/2016 of the Assistnt Sessions Court, Karunagappally. The petitioner is the 3^rd accused in Crime 39/2015 of Chavara Thekkumbhagom Police Station, Kollam District, for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 447, 294(b), 308, 452, 427 r/w Section 149 of IPC. The petitioner alleged that she got a job opportunity in a multinational company in Gulf. She is the only breadwinner of the family. But by the impugned order permission was granted to leave India for a period of four months only.

¶24

Heard both sides.

¶25

It is discernible from the impugned order that the Public Prosecutor submitted before the court below that CW2 is abroad and he can not be made available within a short period. So taking that fact into account, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge granted four months time to the petitioner to go abroad.

¶26

Cr.M.C.No.3079 of 2021

¶27

¶28

Now the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the period allowed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge is already over and the presence of CW2 could not be procured so far by the prosecution and it is also his contention that CW2 will not be available for examination in the near future. If that be so prevention of the petitioner, a lady to work abroad indefinitely will amount to invasion to her fundamental right.

¶29

In Ashok Kumar v. State of Kerala [2009 (2)

¶30

KLT 712] it has been held that when a criminal case is pending permission of the court is necessary for applying the passport. In Mohammed Shaffi v. Regional Passport Officer [2017 (2) KHC 484] , it has been held that concerned criminal court is vested with ample powers to issue direction for providing passport for a specific period. In Thadevoose Sebastian v. The Regional Passport Office and Others [ILR 2021 (4) Ker 453] , it has been held that right to travel beyond the frontiers of our country is a facet of personal liberty.

¶31

Cr.M.C.No.3079 of 2021

¶32

¶33

So, taking into account, the facts and

¶34

circumstances, I find it just and proper to direct the Assistant Sessions Judge to reconsider the Crl.M.P. No.14/2021 afresh, so as to extend the period suitably by taking into account the various circumstances like the procurement of the presence of CW2 and the other factors, in view of the dictum laid down in the above cited decisions.

¶35

It is reported by the learned counsel for the petitioner that she is intending to file a petition under Section 205 Cr.P.C. If at all any such petition is filed by the petitioner it can be disposed of in accordance with law.

¶36

Sd/M.R.ANITHA JUDGE

¶37

SMF

¶38

Cr.M.C.No.3079 of 2021

¶39

¶40

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 3079/2021

¶41

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURE

¶42

ANNEXURE 1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF ORDER IN CRL. MP NO.14/2021 IN SC NO.29/2016 ON THE FILE OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, KARUNAGAPPALLY DATED 06/03/2021. ANNEXURE 2 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF FIR WITH FIS IN CRIME NO.39/2015 OF CHAVARA THEKKUMBHAGOM POLICE STATION DATED 08/01/2015. ANNEXURE 3 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF DEPOSITION OF PW1 IN SC NO.29/2016 DATED 13/10/2017. ANNEXURE 4 TRUE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF PW2 IN SC NO.29/2015 DATED 29/01/2020. ANNEXURE 5 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF DEPOSITION OF PW3 IN SC NO.29/2016 DATED 29/01/2020. ANNEXURE 6 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF DEPOSITION OF PW4 IN SC NO.29/2016 DATED 18/01/2021. ANNEXURE 7 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF DEPOSITION OF PW5 IN SC NO.29/2016 DATED 27/01/2021. ANNEXURE 8 THE COPY OF OFFER LETTER DATED 04/03/2021 RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER. ANNEXURE 9 THE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT AND PETITION FILED AS CRL. MP NO.14/2021 IN SC NO.29/2016 ON THE FILE OF ASST. SESSIONS COURT, KARUNAGAPPALLY DATED 06/01/2021.

¶43

//TRUE COPY//

¶44

PA TO JUDGE

Rekha Najeesh @ Rekha, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rekha Najeesh @ Rekha, 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Moideen Safath, Vs the State of Kerala

Najma K., Vs Thareq Ali C.P.

Nabeel Vs the State of Kerala

Neethu Treesa Jacob @ Neethu Vs Tom Puthenkalam Xavier

Arun Vs the State of Kerala

Arun, Vs State of Kerala