Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

15. It is not in dispute that, the 1 st accused surrendered his passport in obedience of condition No.1 in the bail order of this Court and subsequently got the same released for the purpose of going for a short visit to Dubai for business purose. But, accused Nos. 2 and 3 failed to surrender their passports in obedience to condition No.1 in the bail order. It is not in dispute further that, accued Nos.2 and 3 surrendered their passports only on getting notice in C.M.P. No.2442/2022 filed on 01.06.2022, that is after a period about 19 months.

20. Thus the legal position is well settled. When a Court grants bail after imposing conditions, violation of any of the conditions in a bail order would lead to cancellation of bail by invoking power under Section 437(5) of Cr.P.C. by the Magistrate and under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C by the Sessions Court and the High Court.

21. Coming to the facts of this case, as submitted by both sides, as per the bail order in B.A. Nos. 6695 and 6714 of 2020, this Court granted bail to accused Nos.1 to 3 by imposing condition Nos.1 to 5 as extracted in paragraph No. 5 hereinabove. Indisputably condition No.1 imposed was that, the accused should surrender their passport before the jurisdictional court and should not go abroad without 2025:KER:17607 Crl.M.C. Nos. 5631 & 5639 of 2022 permission of the court and in case they did not have passports, they should file affidavits to that effect. The specific allegation of the defacto complainant is that, accused Nos.1 to 3 violated condition No.1 in the bail order. As far as violation of bail condition No.1 by the 1 st accused is concerned, the trial court found in the negative, while holding that accused Nos.2 and 3 violated the said condition. Accordingly, bail granted to accused Nos.2 and 3 was cancelled. It is discernible that, the 1 st accused surrendered his passport in terms of the bail order and thereafter as per Annexure.3 order dated 06.03.2021 in C.M.P. No.422/2021, his passport was released for a short visit to Dubai for business purpose, with specific direction to surrender the passport on 28.03.2021 and the 1 st accused should not take up employment/employment residence in any foreign country without permission of the Court. Even though, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the defacto complainant, applying for residence/employment visa and getting visa stamped for the said purpose for three years could be seen from Annexure.A5 in Crl.M.C. No.5631/2022 (page No.35), which would show that the 1 st 2025:KER:17607 Crl.M.C. Nos. 5631 & 5639 of 2022 accused also violated condition No.5 of Annexure.3 order dated 06.03.2021, the learned Magistrate was not inclined to accept this contention and to cancel the bail granted to the 1st accused.

22. On perusal of the impugned order, the 1 st accused obeyed condition No.1 imposed by this Court and surrendered his passport and thereafter got his passport released for a short visit to Dubai by filing application before the trial court and subsequently surrendered the passport on 28.03.2021 itself as directed by the trial court, even though visa in the form of residence/employment was stamped for three years. Since the 1 st accused surrendered his passport on 28.03.2021 and he has been available within the jurisdiction of the trial court as of now, the finding of the trial court that he did not willfully violate condition No.5 in Annexure.3 order is only to be justified. In fact, the 1st accused did not violate condition No.1 imposed by this Court.

23. Coming to violation of condition No.1 by accused Nos.2 and 3, even the learned counsel for accused Nos.2 and 3 could not deny the same, as evidently the passports 2025:KER:17607 Crl.M.C. Nos. 5631 & 5639 of 2022 were surrendered after a period of 19 months, that too on getting notice in the bail cancellation petition. No doubt, as per the order dated 02.11.2020 in B.A. Nos.6695 and 6714 of 2020, accused Nos. 2 and 3 were bound to surrender their passports before the jurisdictional court and should not go abroad without permission of the Court and if they did not have passport, they were bound to file affidavits to that effect. However, in the instant case, accused Nos.2 and 3, who possessed valid passports did not surrender the same when the passport of the 1st accused was surrendered or within a reasonable time thereafter, in obedience to condition No.1. In fact, they surrendered their passports only on getting notice in C.M.P. No.2442/2022 filed on 01.06.2022. Thus, it is discernible that in between 02.11.2020 till 01.06.2022 for a long period of 19 months, accused Nos.2 and 3 failed to surrender their passports. Therefore, the allegation raised by the defacto complainant, supported by the prosecution side that, accused Nos.2 and 3 violated condition No.1 in the matter of surrender of passports is only to be justified. In addition to that, it is discernible that, without surrendering the passport, the 2 nd 2025:KER:17607 Crl.M.C. Nos. 5631 & 5639 of 2022 accused used the same and went abroad and thereby, the second part of condition No.1 in the bail order also was violated by the 2nd accused. According to the learned counsel for the defacto complainant, there was attempt on the part of the accused persons to negate the right of the defacto complainant in the company, where she is having 34% of share, as evident from Annexure.R2(c), (d), (e) and