IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 3125 of 2008()
1. ALEX KOSHY
... Petitioner
Vs
1. CBI/SPE/KERALA,REP. BY ITS
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SMT.K.V.RESHMI
For Respondent :SRI.M.V.S.NAMBOOTHIRY,SC, C.B.I.
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :29/08/2008
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J
------------------------------------
Crl.M.C. No.3125 of 2008
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 29th day of August, 2008
ORDER
Petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution for offences
punishable, inter alia, under Sections 120 B and 471 I.P.C as also
Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The petitioner is
not a public servant. He is alleged to have entered into a
criminal conspiracy with the co-accused, who include public
servants, for the commission of the crime. The petitioner was
arrested and enlarged on bail. Investigation is complete. Final
report has already been filed and C.C.No.1 of 2008 has been
registered against the petitioner and the other accused.
2. In the course of investigation, passport of the
petitioner was seized by the C.B.I. It is submitted that the said
passport is not seized as a document necessary for the proof of
the offence alleged in the case. It is also not disputed that the
passport is not surrendered as a condition for grant of bail.
When the petitioner was arrested, his passport was seized also.
That is all. The petitioner had earlier requested the court to
release the passport to him and the learned Special Judge had
Crl.M.C. No.3125 of 2008 2
once earlier directed release of the passport to the petitioner on
condition that he deposits an amount of Rs.1 lakh as security.
The passport was returned to the court and the amount of Rs.1
lakh was taken back by the petitioner. According to the
petitioner, he now needs his passport to travel abroad in
connection with his employment. He made an application before
the learned Special Judge and the learned Special Judge, by the
impugned order, directed release of the passport again on the
identical condition that the petitioner must deposit an amount of
Rs.1 lakh and the same must be retained in custody of the court
as cash security till the passport is surrendered back.
3. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by this
direction. He submits that the passport is not a document to be
introduced in evidence of the case. It was not surrendered
before court as a condition for grant of bail. In these
circumstances, insistence on imposition of such a condition is
unnecessary, unreasonable and harsh. The petitioner is not now
able to raise the amount of Rs.1 lakh to be kept with the court as
security. In these circumstances, the said onerous condition may
be deleted, it is prayed.
Crl.M.C. No.3125 of 2008 3
4. The learned Standing Counsel for the C.B.I opposes
the prayer of the petitioner. The learned Standing Counsel
submits that there is very real chance of the petitioner fleeing
from justice. At the time of grant of bail, no condition relating to
the surrender of the passport was necessary as the passport had
already been seized and was available before court. The learned
Standing Counsel further submits that the petitioner is a person
who was employed by an employer at Bombay and that there is
nothing to show that he has to go abroad now. The learned
Standing Counsel submits that the present submission, that the
passport is required for him to travel abroad in connection with
his employment under his employer at Bombay, cannot be
accepted. At any rate, if this Court were pleased to modify the
conditions imposed, appropriate safeguards may be insisted,
submits the learned Standing Counsel.
5. Having considered all the relevant circumstances, I
am satisfied that there is merit in the opposition by the learned
Public Prosecutor. I am satisfied that the release of the passport
can be upheld. But the condition imposed can be modified to
make it reasonable and not unduly harsh.
6. In the result:
a) This Crl.M.C is allowed in part;
Crl.M.C. No.3125 of 2008 4
b) The condition imposed under the impugned order is
modified. It is directed that the petitioner can take back his
passport from the learned Special Judge on condition that the
petitioner intimates to the Special Judge the period during which
he requires the passport for his journey to abroad. If the learned
Special Judge is satisfied about the request, the passport shall be
released to the petitioner on condition that
i) The petitioner shall execute a bond for Rs.2 lakhs with
two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of
the learned Special Judge;
ii) In such bond, the petitioner shall undertake to
produce the passport back before the learned Special Judge on a
specified date after he performs his journey as required by him
in connection with his employment;
c) It is directed that, at any rate, the petitioner shall
surrender the passport back before the learned Special Judge
within a period of 3 months from the date on which such
passport is released to the petitioner.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
rtr/-