Allowed

Vivek v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Aug 2022Crl.MC/3757/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Misc. Case 3757 of 2022, the High Court of Kerala allowed the petitioner as the second accused to travel abroad for employment. The court granted permission for a passport with three years validity, setting aside the lower court's rejection due to lack of conclusive evidence of the employment requirement.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to go abroad for three years and to have a passport with three years validity, subject to conditions including security deposit of Rs. 50,000/-.

Vivek Vs State of Kerala — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 3^RD DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 12TH SRAVANA, 1944

¶5

CRL.MC NO. 3757 OF 2022

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENTCRMP 79/2021 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT(ADHOC) III, THRISSUR

¶7

PETITIONER/S:

¶8

VIVEK AGED 32 YEARS S/O REGHU, KUNNATH HOUSE, VALAPPAD BEACH DESOM, VALAPPAD VILLAGE, PIN - 680567

¶9

BY ADVS. N.SASI RASMI NAIR T. T.S.SUMSON

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

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

¶12

2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER VALAPPAD POLICE STATION, PIN - 680567

¶13

OTHER PRESENT:

¶14

ADV M P PRASHANTH -S R PP

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.08.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Crl.M.C.No. 3757 of 2022

¶17

¶18

ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A., J

¶19

…...................................

¶20

Crl.M.C.No. 3757 of 2022

¶21

…....................................................... Dated this the 3^rd day of August, 2022

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The petitioner is the 2^nd accused in S.C.No.468/2018 on the files of the Assistant Sessions Court, Thrissur. This Crl.M.C be aggrieved by the Annexure A2 order passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, rejecting the application submitted by the petitioner seeking permission to get a passport with minimum validity of three years.

¶24

Earlier, the petitioner approached the learned Sessions Judge, seeking permission for the issuance of a passport for a period of two years by filing Crl.M.P.No.245/2020, which was allowed as per Annexure AI, by which the petitioner was granted permission to go abroad for a period of two years. Accordingly, he was issued with a passport with two years of validity; later, he submitted an application for extending the period of the passport with a minimum validity of three years which was rejected as per Annexure A3. This order is under challenge in this Crl.M.C.

¶25

Crl.M.C.No. 3757 of 2022

¶26

¶27

Heard, Sri. Sasi N. the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. M.P. Prashanth, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.

¶28

The specific contention put forwarded by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has got an opportunity to go abroad for employment purposes, and unless and until he is issued with a passport with a minimum validity of three years, it may not be possible for him to obtain the Visa. He relies on Annexure A4 communication issued by the employer in which the aforesaid aspect is specifically mentioned. Therefore, the petitioner requires a valid passport for a period of three years.

¶29

However, it is discernible from the impugned order that the learned Sessions Judge rejected the aforesaid application because no documents substantiating the same have been produced before the Assistant Sessions Judge as to the requirement of the petitioner. However, in this Crl.M.C, the petitioner has produced Annexure A4, which indicates the necessity of having a passport with a minimum validity of three years.

¶30

In such circumstances, taking note of the necessity to have the passport for such duration, I am inclined to consider

¶31

Crl.M.C.No. 3757 of 2022

¶32

¶33

the prayer sought for by the petitioner. It is evident from the records that the petitioner was already granted permission to go abroad by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, as evidenced by Annexure A1, for a period of two years, subject to certain conditions. All the said conditions were complied with. The disposal of the Sessions Case is also likely to take some time. The right to go abroad is the petitioner's Constitutional right as it forms part of personal liberty. Unless there are strong and cogent reasons, the same should not be curtailed. In such circumstances, I am inclined to allow the prayer sought by the petitioner.

¶34

In the result, this Crl.M.C is allowed, and Annexure A2 order is set aside. The petitioner is granted permission to go abroad for a period of three years and to have a passport for the validity of three years subject to the following conditions.

¶35

The petitioner shall deposit an amount of

¶36

Rs.50,000/- as security for granting permission.

¶37

It shall be refundable upon the petitioner reports back after the expiry of the said period.

¶38

The petitioner shall file a special vakkalath empowering his counsel to act on his behalf.

¶39

Crl.M.C.No. 3757 of 2022

¶40

¶41

The petitioner is entitled to apply for renewal

¶42

of passport from the Passport Office concerned if he is not otherwise disqualified.

¶43

The period of such passport shall be for three

¶44

years from the date of issuance of the same by the Passport Office

¶45

Petitioner is permitted to travel abroad for

¶46

his job for the said period if the passport is issued.

¶47

The petitioner shall file an affidavit disclosing

¶48

the details of proposed travel and the address in which he intends to stay abroad.

¶49

The petitioner shall file an attested copy of

¶50

the visa if obtained by him.

¶51

Petitioner shall make himself available for

¶52

trial as and when directed by court.

¶53

Sd/-

¶54

ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A., JUDGE

¶55

Dxy

¶56

Crl.M.C.No. 3757 of 2022

¶57

¶58

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 3757/2022

¶59

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶60

Annexure A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED IN CRL.M.P. NO. 245/2020 IN SC NO. 468/2018 BY THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, CHAVAKKAD DATED 10.11.2020 Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED IN CRL.M.P. NO. 79/2021 IN SC NO. 468/2018 BY THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, CHAVAKKAD DATED 1.12.2021 Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED IN CRL.M.P. NO. 2838/2021 IN ST NO. 2378/2020 BY THE JFCM COURT, KODUNGALLUR DATED 2.10.2021

Vivek v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vivek 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ibnul Haris Vs the State of Kerala

Shreekanth Kadam Dhondi Ram Vs State of Kerala

K.P.Udayan Vs the State Police Chief

Shiju V.S. Vs State of Kerala

Haris Vs State of Kerala

Dilshad .T Vs State of Kerala