The petitioner herein is the accused in crime No. 2228/2011 of the Palarivattom Police Station, registered under Sections 468 and 471 IPC and Section 12(b)(d) of the Indian Passport Act. Allegation against him is that he forged a passport to go abroad. It is really strange that this forged passport, seized by the police, was casually returned to the accused. It appears that arrest on the spot was also not made. Much later, he was arrested by the police and was granted bail by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Ernakulam by order dated 14.03.2012 in C.M.P. No. 619/2012, on conditions. One of the conditions is that the accused shall not leave the State of Kerala without permission of the court, and the other condition is that he shall surrender his passport before the court. Report submitted by the police in this proceeding shows that the forged passport was in fact returned to the accused by the Sub Inspector without understanding the Crl.M.C.. No. 491/2013 2 seriousness of it, but now the passport is missing. In fact, the Sub Inspector who returned the passport will have to be dealt with, and appropriate action will have to be taken against him. Any way, the objectionable condition is that the accused shall not leave the State of Kerala. The said condition is sought to be set aside under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The petitioner approached the learned Magistrate, and he also approached the learned Sessions Judge under Section 439(1)(b) Cr.P.C., but the request was turned down. 2. On hearing both sides, I find that the said condition need not continue now, when the investigation is practically over. The crime is of the year 2011, and bail was granted in March, 2012. Now, we are in October, 2014. The police does not report why the said condition should continue now, when the investigation is practically over. The petitioner seeks orders on the ground that he is involved in a crime registered in the State of Tamil Nadu, and as a condition for bail in the said crime, he will have to report before the investigating officer, periodically. If the condition imposed here is not set aside, he cannot comply with the Crl.M.C.. No. 491/2013 3 condition in the other crime. In the above circumstances, especially when there is no necessity to continue the condition now in October, 2014, the objectionable condition can be set aside.
In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. Condition No.2 imposed by the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Ernakulam as per order dated 14.03.2012 in C.M.P. No.619/2012 will stand set aside.
Sd/-
P. UBAID, JUDGE sd // TRUE COPY // P.A. TO JUDGE