IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 1889 of 2009()
1. RADHA @ RADHAMANI @ RADHACHI,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
For Petitioner :SRI.JOHN VARGHESE
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :30/07/2009
O R D E R
M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J.
--------------------------
Crl.M.C.No.1889 of 2009
--------------------------
ORDER
Petitioner is the third accused in Crime No.
88/2008 of CBCID, SIG-III, Kozhikode. Case was
registered for offences under Sections 406, 465,
468, 471, 477 and 120B read with Section 34 of
Indian Penal Code. As per Annexure-A1 order dated
16.9.2008, this Court granted bail to the
petitioner on conditions. The first condition was
that petitioner shall surrender her passport within
seven days of her release from custody, before the
Magistrate Court concerned. Petitioner surrendered
the passport and she was released on bail. Under
Annexure-A3 order dated 8.1.2009, Condition Nos.2
and 3 in Annexure-A1 order was lifted, making it
clear that petitioner is entitled to approach the
Magistrate for return of the passport. Petitioner
filed C.M.P.No.159/2009 before the Magistrate for
getting the passport released. Under Annexure-A4
CRMC 1889/09
2
order, learned Magistrate dismissed the petition
holding that investigation is in progress and
hence, if the passport is released, she would go
abroad and it would adversely affect the
investigation. This petition is filed under
Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash
Annexure-A4 order and to release the passport.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
and learned Public Prosecutor were heard.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
submitted that daughter of the petitioner is
settled in Brunei and she has to visit her daughter
and therefore, the passport is to be released.
Learned counsel submitted that petitioner is
prepared to co-operate with the investigation and
will return to India within six months and if
necessary, she will return earlier, for the purpose
of investigation and in such circumstances, the
passport be released.
CRMC 1889/09
3
4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that
fifth accused is yet to be apprehended and report
from the Forensic Science Laboratory is yet to be
received and therefore, for further investigation,
interrogation of the petitioner may be necessary
and if the passport is released, petitioner may not
be available for further interrogation and will not
even be available for trial and in such
circumstances, the passport cannot be released.
5. Petitioner was granted bail as early as on
16.9.2008. There was a direction to the petitioner
to appear before the Investigating Officer on every
Monday until further orders and it was lifted only
on 31.10.2008 and even there, petitioner was
directed to appear before the Investigating Officer
on the first Monday of every month. In such
circumstances, I find that on the ground of
questioning the petitioner, her passport need not
be retained. If the apprehension is that petitioner
will not be available for interrogation or trial,
CRMC 1889/09
4
sufficient conditions could be imposed.
In such circumstances, Annexure-A4 order is
quashed. Judicial First Class Magistrate-I,
Ernakulam is directed to release the passport to
the petitioner, on filing an undertaking before the
court to the effect that she is prepared to appear
before the Investigating Officer as and when
necessary with sufficient notice and also
undertaking that she will appear before the court
at the time of trial. Petitioner shall return to
India within six months from the date of leaving,
after getting the passport released.
Petition is disposed.
30th July, 2009 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge)
tkv