Disposed

M.Prem Kumar v. the State Rep by Its

Madras HC6 Sept 2019CRL OP/6526/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition filed by an accused person seeking return of passport for travel to UAE and Singapore. The Court granted permission on the condition that the petitioner receives the passport from the Trial Court and surrenders it back upon completion of the visit.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to visit UAE and Singapore upon receiving passport from Trial Court and surrendering it back after return, subject to conditions of not overstaying or visiting other countries.

M.Prem Kumar Vs the State Rep by Its — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Dated: 06.09.2019

¶3

Coram::

¶4

The Honourable Dr.Justice G.Jayachandran

¶5

Criminal Original Petition.No.6526 of 2019

¶6

Shri.M.Prem Kumar, S/o.Shri.R.Mohan, Residing at New No.22, Old No.20, Kilpauk Garden First Cross Street, Kilpauk, Chennai – 600 010. ... Petitioner/Accused 2

¶7

/verus/

¶8

State Rep. by Superintendent of Police, CBI, ACB, Shastri Bhavan, Chennai – 600 006. ... Respondent/Complainant

¶9

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, praying to set aside the order in Crl.S.R.No.642/2019 in Crl.M.P.No.557/2017, in R.C.M.A.No.1/2016 A0040 passed by the XI Additional CBI Court, Chennai dated 19.02.2019 and direct return of the Indian Passport bearing No.Z1764282, for travel abroad subject to such terms and any conditions.

¶10

Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the Learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent.

¶11

The petitioner herein is one of the accused in R.C.M.A.1 of 2016 A0040 investigated by the respondent/C.B.I. Hence, the petitioner sought for return of passport, to visit UAE and Singapore.

¶12

On notice, the respondent has verified the credence of the petitioner's request and after ascertaining from the counterpart at UAE, Dubai, cleared the request of the petitioner. Hence, this Court vide order dated 19.07.2019

¶13

permitted the petitioner to visit UAE, Dubai and return on certain conditions. Since, the respondent was awaiting report from the counterpart from Singapore, the matter has been kept adjourned time to time.

¶14

Today, when the matter is listed, the Learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent/C.B.I states that, despite their efforts, they were not able to get clearance from their counterpart at Singapore. Any way, the petitioner antecedent does not warrant withholding of the permission to visit abroad, so the request of the petitioner may be considered.

¶15

The learned Counsel for the petitioner states that, the petitioner proposed to visit Singapore during the 1^st week of October 2019. Recording the same, the Criminal Original Petition is disposed of; on the following terms.

¶16

(i). The petitioner shall receive the passport from the Trial Court on or before 01.10.2019 and after completion of his visit to Singapore, shall surrender it back in the trial Court by 15.10.2019.

¶17

(ii). The petitioner shall not visit any other Country and he shall not overstay beyond 15.10.2019.

¶18

(iii). In future, if the petitioner requires passport for travel abroad, the trial Court shall consider the request and antecedent of the petitioner and pass order on merits, after hearing the respondent/C.B.I.

¶19

Recording the same, the Criminal Original Petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶20

s/d-

¶21

Assistant Registrar(CO)

¶22

True Copy

¶23

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶24

bsm

¶25

¶26

The XI Additional CBI Court, Chennai

¶27

The Superintendent of Police, CBI, ACB, Shastri Bhavan, Chennai – 600 006.

¶28

3.The Special Public Prosecutor, C.B.I, High Court, Madras. +2CCs to Mr.B.Sathish Sundar, Advocate sr 77177

¶29

Crl.O.P.No.6526 of 2019

¶30

SAI(CO) SP(17/09/2019)

M.Prem Kumar v. the State Rep by Its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Prem Kumar v. the State Rep by Its

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

G.Suresh Vs The Assistant Executive Engineer

K.S.A. Prabhu, Vs The District Collector

Moorthy, Vs The Collector

T.a.S.Kaleelul Rahman Vs The Registrar of Cooperative Societies (Housing)

The Dean Vs M/s.Hindusthan Surgicals

Lakshmi Vs The Block Development Officer