Madras High Court
Senthilnathan vs The Inspector Of Police on 1 April, 2015
Author: M.Sathyanarayanan
Bench: M.Sathyanarayanan
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 01.04.2015
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN
CRL.R.C.(MD)No.145 of 2015
Senthilnathan : Petitioner
Vs.
The Inspector of Police,
Karaikudi North Police Station,
Karaikudi,
Sivagangai District. : Respondent
Prayer: Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to call for the records connected with
the order dated 03.03.2015 in Cr.M.P.No.985 of 2015 passed by the learned
Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi and set aside the same as illegal and
consequently, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi, may be directed to
return the petitioner's passport within the time stipulated by this Court.
!For Petitioner : Mr.R.Alagumani
^For Respondent : Mr.C.Ramesh,
Additional Public Prosecutor
:ORDER
Mr.C.Ramesh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, accepts notice for the respondent. By consent, the revision is taken up for final disposal.
2. The petitioner is an Indian Passport holder bearing No.J4333529 issued by the Regional Passport Officer, Trichy, and it is having validity till 05.02.2022.
3. The petitioner herein was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 20.06.2014 for the alleged commission of the offences punishable under Sections 420, 294(b) and 506(ii) IPC in Crime No.348 of 2014 registered by the respondent.
4. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner had agreed to purchase the landed property from the defacto complainant for a sale consideration of Rs.1,30,00,000/- and he has also paid a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- towards advance and got power of attorney and without paying the balance sale consideration, had executed a sale deed in respect of his wife, who is arrayed as accused No.2.
5. The petitioner was granted bail by this Court, vide order dated 07.01.2015 in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.22986 of 2014, subject to certain conditions. Prior to the passing of the said order, the petitioner was granted interim bail, vide order dated 23.07.2014 in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13548 of 2014 and one of the conditions is that he shall surrender his passport to the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi, and shall not leave India without prior permission of this Court and accordingly, the petitioner has surrendered his Indian Passport.
6. The wife of the petitioner, who is arrayed as accused No.2, also got an order of anticipatory bail, dated 16.02.2015 in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.22987 of 2014.
7. The petitioner has filed Cr.M.P.No.985 of 2015, stating among other things, that he is carrying on very many business activities in Malaysia and he is also a Director of a company in Tmaju Sdn Bhd (1015223-x), in which, he is a major share holder and he is also assessed to income tax in Malaysia and for that purpose, he used to visit twice or thrice every month to the said country. It is further stated by the petitioner that he is also carrying on business under the name and style of 'KKS Air Travels & Mobiles and Agencies Cement' in Karaikudi and Devakkottai and also he is having deep-root in this country also and for visiting Malaysia in connection with his business activities, prayed for return of the passport. The said petition was dismissed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi, on the ground that the petitioner has surrendered his passport, in pursuant to the order dated 23.07.2014 made in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13548 of 2014 and citing the said reason, has dismissed the petition, vide impugned order dated 03.03.2015 and challenging the legality of the same, the present revision is filed.
8. Mr.R.Alagumani, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the voluminous typed-set of documents and would submit that the petitioner is having the work permit issued by the Malaysian Government and he is also a major shareholder in Corporate Company incorporated in Malaysia and apart from that, he is also carrying on business activities in Karaikudi and Devakkottai and he requires a passport purely in connection with his business activities in Malaysia. Hence, there cannot be any impediment in returning the passport to him.
9. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, on instructions, would submit that the petitioner will not abscond and fully co- operate with the investigating agency as well as to the trial Court for early completion of the proceedings and hence, prays for setting aside the order and return of the passport.
10. Per contra, Mr.C.Ramesh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor would contend that the investigation of the case has been completed and charge sheet is yet to be filed and in the event of return of passport, the petitioner may not return to this country to face the criminal prosecution and prays for dismissal of this revision.
11. In response to the said submission, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would submit that the wife of the petitioner is arrayed as accused No.2 and she is going to remain in India so also his family and hence, there cannot be any impediment in ordering return of the passport.
12. This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and also perused the typed-set of documents.
13. A perusal of the typed-set of documents would disclose that the petitioner is a resident of Door No.1/1, Thiru.Vi.Ka.Street, Sriramnagar, Kottaiyoor, Karaikudi Taluk, Sivagangai District and he is also having a residence in Malaysia that is '2-16 Prima Steapak, Kuala lumpur, Malaysia- 53300'. A perusal of the xerox copy of the passport would disclose that he is frequently visiting to Malaysia and his company, namely M/s.K.K.S. Air Travels is also registered under the Department of Industries and Commerce and thus, he is having a deep-root in this country and his wife is also residing in the local address.
14. In the light of the said facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that there cannot be any impediment in ordering the return of the passport to the petitioner by way of interim measure, so as to enable him to attend his business activities in Kuala lumpur, Malaysia, subject to certain conditions.
15. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed and the impugned order dated 03.03.2015, made in Cr.M.P.No.985 of 2015, on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi, is set aside and the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi, is directed to return the Indian Passport of the petitioner bearing No.J4333529 issued by the Regional Passport Officer, Trichy, subject to the following conditions:
(i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi.
(ii) The petitioner shall furnish the date of leaving to Malaysia and the intending date of return to this country to the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi.
(iii) The petitioner shall furnish his residential as well as the office address in Kuala lumpur, Malaysia along with landline number, mobile number, fax number and his E-Mail address to the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi .
(iv) On compliance of the above said conditions, the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi, is directed to return the passport.
(v) If the petitioner violates anyone of the aforesaid conditions, it is open to the prosecution to move this Court for cancellation of bail.
01.04.2015 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No SML To
1.The Court of Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi.
2.The Inspector of Police, Karaikudi North Police Station, Karaikudi, Sivagangai District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
M.SATHYANARAYANAN, J.
SML Order made in CRL.R.C.(MD)No.145 of 2015 Dated:
01.04.2015