Accused Cooperative, Can't Impede His Right To Study Abroad Merely Because Police Have Not Submitted Final Report: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court on Thursday granted permission to a person accused of committing the offence punishable under Section 498A (Cruelty to woman by husband or his relative) IPC, to pursue higher studies in Australia, despite the police not having submitted the final report in the case. 

"...it is evident that, since the date of the surrender, he has been cooperating with the investigation and interrogation of the petitioner is already over. Apparently, no recovery is also to be affected. Therefore, I am of the view that, merely because the police have not submitted the final report, he need not be deprived of his right to go abroad to pursue his studies," the Single Judge Bench of Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. observed. 

The petitioner was earlier granted Anticipatory Bail by the Court in this matter, with certain stipulations. One such condition was that he had to surrender before the investigating officer within three weeks. Condition (iv) stipulated that the petitioner had to appear before the investigating officer every Saturday till the filing of the final report, while condition (viii) stated that he could not leave the country, without the permission of the jurisdictional court.

The petitioner subsequently approached the Magistrate Court seeking permission to go abroad, since he was pursuing a course in the University of Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, Australia.

It was averred that the anticipatory bail application had been moved by the petitioner when he came to India in connection with a spinal cord surgery, and that he now had to return to Australia to continue the said course. His application seeking permission was however rejected by the Magistrate, in view of the fact that granting permission would amount to violation of condition (iv) of the anticipatory bail order. It is challenging the same that the present petition was filed before the High Court. 

The Court in this case observed that condition (iv) had subsequently been deleted, and would no longer operate as a bar in the matter. 

The Court also took note that the petitioner had been cooperating with the investigation and his interrogation was over, although no recovery had been effected. The Court was fortified in its view that in such circumstances, the petitioner could not be deprived of his right to go abroad merely because the police had not filed the final report. 

"Therefore, I am of the view that the prayer sought by the petitioner can be granted by imposing appropriate conditions to ensure that he will appear before the jurisdictional court or before the investigating officer as and when required," it declared. 

The petitioner's application was thus allowed, subject to his executing a bond for Rs. 1 Lakh. 

Counsel for the Petitioner: Advocates M.R. Sarin, Parvathi Krishna, Saumya P.S., Lekshmi S.R., P. Santhoshkumar, Aji S., Anaswara Deepthi V.V., and Anju Thomas M.

Counsel for the Respondent: Public Prosecutor Jacob E. Simon 

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 562