Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Muhammadali vs State of Kerala

Muhammadali vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Jan 14, 2021
~4 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1706308

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Kerala High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Crl.MC/5489/2020

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Muhammadali

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....of taking up the employment.2. sri.m.ravikrishnan, learned counsel for thepetitioner submits that the petitioner is a young man, who has now got an opportunity to work abroad and that even going by the prosecution allegation, only the offence under section 435 ipc is attracted, which is a bailable offence. it is submitted that the allegation of the petitioner being a suspect in three other crimes is without basis and it will be too harsh to compel the petitioner to remain in india on the ground that the other accused are abroad.3. sri.c.s.hrithwik, learned senior public prosecutor submitted that the petitioner was arrested on the basis of look out notice, since he had absconded during investigation of the crime. that, if crl.mc.no.5489 of 2020(e) ..4.. the petitioner is permitted to go abroad now, the possibility of his returning is remote.4. in reply, learned counsel for the petitionersubmitted that the petitioner was not initially made an accused and he was available in india for a period of two months after the crime was registered and that he was arrayed as accused only after he had gone abroad, which resulted in the look out notice being issued.5. having considered the rival submissions, i amof the opinion that the investigation being at a nascent stage, no purpose will be served by compelling the petitioner to remain in india. at the same time, no valid ground is stated for returning the amount of rs.50,000/- remitted in compliance of the bail condition. in the result, the criminal m.c.is allowed in part, by setting aside annexure-a5 order. the judicial firstcrl.mc.no.5489 of 2020(e) ..5..class magistrate, nadapuram is directed to release the petitioner's passport for a period of two years, from 01.02.2021, subject to the following conditions. (i). the petitioner shall file an affidavit undertaking to return to india and to resubmit his passport before the magistrate court within the two year period. (ii). the petitioner shall provide his foreign postal.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 24TH POUSHA, 1942 Crl.MC.No.5489 OF 2020(E) CRIME NO.521/2019 OF Valayam Police Station , Kozhikode PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2: MUHAMMADALI AGED 26 YEARS S/O. ABDUL SALAM, KANHIRAMULLATHIL HOUSE, NARIPATTA, VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE. BY ADVS. SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN RESPONDENT/STATE AND COMPLAINANT: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-682031. 2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, VELAYAM POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE.

OTHER PRESENT: SR.PP.C.S.HRITHWIK THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.MC.No.5489 OF 2020(E) ..2..

ORDER

Dated this the 14th day of January 2021

The petitioner is the second accused in Crime No.521/2019 of Valayam Police Station, registered for offences punishable under Sections 448 and 436 of IPC. By Annexure-A1 order, the Sessions Court granted bail to the petitioner subject to certain conditions. Condition No.2 in Annexure-A1 is that the 'petitioner should deposit an amount of Rs.50,000/- and surrender his passport, before the learned Magistrate at the time of executing the bond'. Subsequently, the petitioner moved an application seeking modification of the condition, requiring him to deposit the amount of Rs.50,000/-, which was rejected vide Annexure-A3. Thereupon, the petitioner sought modification of the condition regarding deposit of his passport stating that he has obtained employment abroad. That application was dismissed

Crl.MC.No.5489 OF 2020(E) ..3.. vide Annexure-A5 order. This Criminal M.C.is filed challenging Annexures-A3 and A5 orders and seeking permission to go abroad for the purpose of taking up the employment.

2. Sri.M.Ravikrishnan, learned Counsel for the

petitioner submits that the petitioner is a young man, who has now got an opportunity to work abroad and that even going by the prosecution allegation, only the offence under Section 435 IPC is attracted, which is a bailable offence. It is submitted that the allegation of the petitioner being a suspect in three other crimes is without basis and it will be too harsh to compel the petitioner to remain in India on the ground that the other accused are abroad.

3. Sri.C.S.Hrithwik, learned Senior Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner was arrested on the basis of look out notice, since he had absconded during investigation of the crime. That, if Crl.MC.No.5489 OF 2020(E) ..4.. the petitioner is permitted to go abroad now, the possibility of his returning is remote.

4. In reply, learned Counsel for the petitioner

submitted that the petitioner was not initially made an accused and he was available in India for a period of two months after the crime was registered and that he was arrayed as accused only after he had gone abroad, which resulted in the look out notice being issued.

5. Having considered the rival submissions, I am

of the opinion that the investigation being at a nascent stage, no purpose will be served by compelling the petitioner to remain in India. At the same time, no valid ground is stated for returning the amount of Rs.50,000/- remitted in compliance of the bail condition. In the result, the Criminal M.C.is allowed in part, by setting aside Annexure-A5 order. The Judicial First

Crl.MC.No.5489 OF 2020(E) ..5..

Class Magistrate, Nadapuram is directed to release the petitioner's passport for a period of two years, from 01.02.2021, subject to the following conditions. (i). The petitioner shall file an affidavit undertaking to return to India and to resubmit his passport before the Magistrate court within the two year period. (ii). The petitioner shall provide his foreign postal address along with his e- mail address and mobile number, as well as the details of his employer. (iii). The petitioner shall submit duly attested copies of the relevant pages of his passport when the original passport is returned to him.

Sd/- V.G.ARUN SB/14/01/2021 JUDGE Crl.MC.No.5489 OF 2020(E) ..6..

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE BAIL ORDER DATED 20.3.2020 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE COURT OF SESSION, KOZHIKODE. ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION (CMP.680/2020) SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17.7.2020 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE COURT OF SESSION, KOZHIKODE IN CMP.680/2020. ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION (CMP.782/2020) SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. ANNEXURE A5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 8.10.2020 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE COURT OF SESSION, KOZHIKODE CMP.782/2020. //true copy// P.A to Judge

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial