O P HARIS Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is the 7th accused in Crime No.594 of 2010 of Nadapuram police for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324 and 308 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, "the IPC") (learned counsel for petitioner submits that Section 308 of the IPC was incorporated later). PETITIONER was granted bail on 19.11.2010 subject to conditions which included that he shall surrender his passport in the trial court. Accordingly petitioner surrendered the passport. Later in connection with employment abroad he wanted to go abroad and for that purpose requested learned Sessions Judge vide Crl. M.P. No.79 of 2010 to release the passport. That application was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge as per Annexure-A3, order dated January 19, 2011. That order is under challenge. It is stated that petitioner is aged 26 years and that he has been falsely implicated in the case. It is also submitted that if the passport is not released, petitioner may lose his job. I have heard learned Public Prosecutor also. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that investigation is almost completed but charge sheet could not be filed since wound certificate and site plan are not obtained. Investigating Officer has an apprehension that if petitioner is permitted to go abroad he will not return. It would appear from the submissions of learned Public Prosecutor that presence of petitioner is not essential for investigation purpose. It may take some time for committal of the case and for commencement of trial.

(2.) HAVING regard to the facts and circumstances of the case I am inclined to permit petitioner to go abroad for a period of three months from the date of release of passport to him or until his presence is required for investigation, committal or trial of the case whichever is earlier. Resultantly, this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed. Annexure-A3, order is set aside and Crl. M.P. No.79 of 2011 is allowed in the following lines: